DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.266 of 23-04-2014

Decided on 17-11-2014

Nishant Goyal @ Parshant Goyal aged about 27 years S/o Amar Nath Goyal S/o Madan Lal R/o Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Near PWD Rest House, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, through its Senior Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Dugri, Ludhiana, through its Senior Divisional Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Surinder Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the father of the complainant has purchased one insurance policy bearing No.160771206 under table term 102-15 for the sum assured of Rs.25,000/- with annual premium of Rs.1623/- and commencement date of 28.11.1994. At the time of selling of the abovesaid policy the agent of the opposite party No.1 conveyed the father of the complainant that he shall get the income tax rebate on his income. The father of the complainant continuously deposited the premiums of the abovesaid policy at the regular intervals with the opposite parties. In the month of November, 2007 the complainant was in the dire need of money and approached the opposite party No.1 and asked it for the loan against the abovesaid policy, its officials obtained his signatures on some blank papers and blank printed forms with the assurance that the maximum permissible loan shall be released to him against the abovesaid policy. The complainant deposited the abovesaid policy with the opposite party No.1, it assured him that the loan amount shall be given to him through cheque, but the loan amount was not disbursed to him. On inquiry by the complainant, the officials of the opposite party No.1 conveyed him that a fresh insurance policy against the single premium of Rs.30,000/- has been issued to him and further conveyed him that the policy bearing No.300882801 dated 15.11.2007 has been issued to him and loan amount that was to be disbursed to him has been adjusted against the abovesaid policy and the complainant shall get double of the amount after 5 years alongwith the other benefits under the abovesaid policy and handed over him a pamphlet, wherein it has been mentioned so. The opposite parties did not send the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy to the complainant. In the month of November, 2012 the amount of Rs.60,000/- was due against the opposite parties, but in the month of April, 2012 the complainant was in the dire need of money, approached the opposite party No.1 and demanded the aforesaid amount from the officials of the opposite party No.1, they again obtained his signatures on some blank papers and conveyed him that approximately the amount of Rs.55,000/- alongwith other benefits against the abovesaid policy shall be sent to him through cheque. The complainant received the cheques bearing Nos.330204 dated 26.4.2012 for the amount of Rs.38,805/- alongwith the covering letter dated 26.4.2012 from the opposite parties against the due amount of Rs.55,000/- in the month of April, 2012, in this way the amount of Rs.16,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a is due against the opposite parties. The complainant time and again approached the opposite party No.1 and requested it to pay the remaining amount alongwith upto date interest @ 18% p.a. but to no effect. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.16,000/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation or to give him any other additional, alternative or consequential relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the true facts are that the complainant received the payment against the abovesaid policy and invested the same to purchase the new policy bearing No.300882801. The officials of the opposite parties never conveyed the complainant that after completion of 5 years from the date of commencement of the abovesaid policy, he shall get the minimum double of the amount so deposited by him alongwith other benefits. The complainant is a literate person and must have gone through the policy conditions before getting the insurance policy in question. The policy alongwith its terms and conditions were duly issued to the complainant. The opposite parties further pleaded that the policy in question is a ULIP Plan and linked with market sensex and any investment made in the policy depends upon the risk of the market ups and downs. Nobody can presuppose the future of the market and can guarantee of the appreciation in the investment. The complainant purchased the policy in question to invest the premium amount in the share market for a speculative gain as such he is not covered under the definition of a consumer. The due amount was paid to the complainant on his request as per the value of the units held by him as on the date and nothing is due against the opposite parties.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the father of the complainant has purchased the insurance policy bearing No.160771206 under table term 102-15 for the sum assured of Rs.25,000/- with annual premium of Rs.1623/- and commencement date of 28.11.1994. The opposite parties issued the new policy bearing No.300882801 dated 15.11.2007 of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as single premium policy. The opposite parties have given the cheques bearing Nos.330204 dated 26.4.2012 for the amount of Rs.38,805/- to the complainant.

6. The submission of the complainant is that he approached the opposite party No.1 and asked it for the loan against the abovesaid policy, its officials obtained his signatures on some blank papers and blank printed forms with the assurance that the maximum permissible loan shall be released to him against the abovesaid policy. The complainant deposited the abovesaid policy with the opposite party No.1, it assured him that the loan amount shall be given to him through cheque, but the loan amount was not disbursed to him. On inquiry by the complainant, the officials of the opposite party No.1 conveyed him that a fresh insurance policy against the single premium of Rs.30,000/- has been issued to him and further conveyed him that the policy bearing No.300882801 dated 15.11.2007 has been issued to him and loan amount that was to be disbursed to him has been adjusted against the abovesaid policy and complainant shall get double of the amount after 5 years alongwith the other benefits under the abovesaid policy and handed over him a pamphlet, wherein it has been mentioned so. In the month of November, 2012 the amount of Rs.60,000/- was due against the opposite parties, but in the month of April, 2012 the complainant was in the dire need of money, approached the opposite party No.1 and demanded the aforesaid amount from the officials of the opposite party No.1, they again obtained his signatures on some blank papers and conveyed him that approximately the amount of Rs.55,000/- alongwith other benefits against the abovesaid policy shall be sent to him through cheque. The complainant received the cheques bearing Nos.330204 dated 26.4.2012 for the amount of Rs.38,805/- alongwith the covering letter dated 26.4.2012 from the opposite parties against the due amount of Rs.55,000/- in the month of April, 2012, in this way the amount of Rs.16,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a is due against the opposite parties.

7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite parties is that the complainant received the payment against the abovesaid policy and invested the same to purchase the new policy bearing No.300882801. The officials of the opposite parties never conveyed the complainant that after completion of 5 years from the date of commencement of the abovesaid policy, he shall get the minimum double of the amount so deposited by him alongwith other benefits. The opposite parties further submitted that the policy in question is a ULIP Plan and linked with market sensex and any investment made in the policy depends upon the risk of the market ups and downs. Nobody can presuppose the future of the market and can guarantee of the appreciation in the investment. The complainant purchased the policy in question to invest the premium amount in the share market for a speculative gain as such he is not covered under the definition of a consumer. The due amount was paid to the complainant on his request as per the value of the units held by him as on the date and nothing is due against the opposite parties.

8. A perusal of Ex.OP1/2, shows that the complainant has invested the money in the growth fund, meaning thereby after seeking the loan he has invested his money in the ULIP policy (Market Linked Plan), thus as per the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, Revision Petition No.658/2012, decided on 23.4.2013, in ULIP/Market Linked cases, the policyholder is not a consumer and Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the matter of ULIP/Market Linked Policies. On the same analogy the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled as Smt.Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Consumer Complaint No.96 of 29.11.2011, decided on 4.7.2014 has held that Unit Linked Insurance Policy dispute is not maintainable under the 'Act, as the money having been invested in a speculative business.

9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above and in the light of above referred precedents we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has invested his money in ULIP/Market Linked Plan, thus he is not a consumer as defined under the 'Act'. Hence this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The merits of the complaint are not being touched. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum/court/authority for the redressal of his grievances if so advised and permitted by law.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

17-11-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member