Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/464

Rajinder singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mohindra Life Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

compl in person

18 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:464 dated 30.09.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 18.05.2022.

 

Rajinder Singh aged 75 years son of S. Bahadar Singh, resident of House No.137/2, Vikas Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance, Surya Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its branch Manager/authorized signatory.                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite party 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Complainant Sh. Surinder Singh in person.

For OP                           :         Sh. P.S. Gumber, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that in the year 2008, the representative of the OP allured the complainant to buy an insurance policy on the assurance that the complainant would get huge benefits. It was represented that the policy would be of 10 years and after 10 years, the OP would pay maximum benefits to the complainant. It was represented to the complainant that he would have to deposit three installments of Rs.50,000/- each. On the mis-representation, the complainant issued cheque of Rs.50,000/- towards premium of the policy bearing No.1319365. Thereafter, the complainant further deposits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of two different cheques of Rs.50,000/- each. In all the complainant made the payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. In February 2014, when the complainant went to the office of the OP, he was shocked to know that the fund value of the units had come down to Rs.73,000/- only. On enquiry, he was told that the money was invested in the share market. Thereafter, in the month of February 2018, the OP deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the account of the complainant towards full and final settlement towards his claim. The complainant approached the higher authorities of OP at Mumbai but to no avail. The complainant further approached Insurance Ombudsman at Chandigarh but he also failed to do the needful. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OP be directed to refund the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @18% per annum along with compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the policy is an unit linked policy which is purely market based. The unit linked policies are invested in share market for speculative gain and, therefore, the complainant does not fall within definition of consumer in terms of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It has also been pleaded that the complaint is barred by time. The so called agent who made the mis-representation to the complainant has not been made a party. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant got Kotak Smart Advantage Plan for a sum assured of Rs.3,75,000/-. The term of the policy was 10 years and the premium @ Rs.50,000/- per year was also payable for 10 years. However, the complainant foreclosed the policy with pay out of Rs.50,000/-. Moreover, if the complainant was not satisfied with the policy, he could return the policy within 15 days during free look period. The complainant only paid three premiums of Rs.50,000/- each and failed to pay the remaining premiums. As a result, the policy lapsed and went into Automatic Cover Maintenance Mode (ACM mode) from 22.11.2011. After the end of ACM period, the policy was terminated and the payout was done. A complaint lodged by the complainant with the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh was also dismissed. The complainant is not entitled for any amount. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                The complainant filed replication to the written statement reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverting those mentioned in the written statement.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C22 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Aditya Singh, working as AVP Legal of the OP along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R9 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 

7.                It is not disputed that the complainant had bought a unit linked policy from the OP. In this regard, a reference can be made to the law laid down in Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. in Revision petitionNo.658 of 2012 decided on 23.04.2013 whereby the Hon’ble  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has held that if the policy is unit linked policy and is dependent upon market volatility, the value of which can go up and down depending upon the market condition and the money having been invested in the market for speculative gains or speculative investment does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable.

8.                Secondly, the complainant has not led any evidence of fraud. Even the name of the agent or official of the OP who mis-represented the complainant has not been disclosed. The complainant could have return the policy within free look period of 15 days and even that was not done by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant stopped paying annual premium after just three years whereas as per the policy documents, the premium was payable for a minimum period of 10 years. As a result, the police went into lapse mode and on completion of five years, the payment of Rs.50,000/- was made as per fund value as on date. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the complainant is entitled to refund the remaining premium of Rs.1,00,000/- along with damages, as prayed for in the complaint.

9.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:18.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Rajinder Singh Vs Kotak Mahindra LIC                                  CC/19/464

Present:       Complainant Sh. Rajinder Singh in person.

                   Sh. P.S. Gumber, Advocate for the OP.

                  

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:18.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.