THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

I.A.48/15 IN C.C.381/14

Dated this the 30^th day of April, 2016

 (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                    :  President)

                                                                      Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                          : Member

                                                                      Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB               : Member

ORDER

Present: Rose Jose, president:

          This petition is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.1986.

            Petitioner’s case in brief is that  as invited by the opposite party the 1^st petitioner participated in a meeting conducted by them and in that meeting the officials of the opposite party took classes regarding different kinds of business investment policies and informed that if they are investing in such policies there will be no loss and that if premium is paid for minimum 3 years without fault they can surrender the policy at any time and will get back the amount paid along with profit.  Based on the  assurance they have taken two policies having policy Nos. C320457621 and C320457634 dtd.22.06.2010.  The premium payable in policy No.C320457621 is Rs.22695/- and in the other policy it was Rs.22718/- annually.  They have remitted 4 installments amounting to a total sum of Rs.90780/- in the 1^st policy and Rs.90872/- in the 2^nd policy respectively.

            There after due to financial stringency they went to the office of the opposite party and informed that they want to surrender the policies and demanded the remitted amount along with profit.  But it was told that they are eligible for Rs.36750/- in the 1^st policy  and Rs.36448/- in the 2^nd policy. Even after repeated requests they are not willing to pay back the remitted amount with profit.  The said act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on their part.  This caused heavy financial loss, mental agony and other difficulties to them.  Hence this petition seeking relief.

            The opposite party filed version denying all the statements made by the petitioner except the issuance of the policies.  They have a specific case that this petition is not maintainable before the forum a s the policies in question are participating policies, which means Unit Linked policies(ULIP).  It is different from traditional life insurance policies that the investment in these policies are for getting profits  and hence it is commercial in nature.

            The opposite party filed I.A.48/15 challenging maintainability of this petition before this forum.  So before going to the merits of the petition we decided to hear the matter as a preliminary issue.

            According to the opposite party the policies taken by the petitioner were Tata AIG Life Mahalife gold policies which are participating whole life plan and are Unit linked insurance policies.  It is of speculative in nature and the investment is for profit and as such these policies are subject to different risk factors.  The risk factor is to be borne by the insured and it was stated in the policy conditions also.  The guidelines for the issuance of the ULIP policies are laid down by the IRDA and this policies are conform to these guidelines.  It is stated that the petitioners themselves have admitted in their petition itself that they have agreed to participate in the business of the opposite party.  As the investment is  for business purpose and is of speculative in  nature the petitioners are not consumers within the meaning of the C.P.Act and hence prayed to dismiss the petition as not maintainable.

            The petitioners filed counter to the I.A. stating that it is filed only to defeat the rightful claim of them on mistaken stand.  Before adducing evidence in support of this respective claims by both the parties, the eligibility of being consumers  can not be decided and hence maintainability is  to be considered on completion of the evidence.

            In Ram lal Aggerwala Vs.Bajaj Alliance Life insurance co Ltd 2013(2)CPR 389(NC) the Hon’ble National Commission held that “ the petitioner/complainant policy in question is a Unit Linked(market) policy and Law is now well settled that such policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such the policy holder of such policies are not consumers and the  disputes in such policies are not sustainable before the consumer Forum”.

            In this petition it is stated by the 1^st petitioner that in that meeting conducted by the opposite party the classes was with regard to business investment policies and their assurance was that the investors will get profit from these policies and that is why they have taken these policies.  The opposite party also admitted that the said policies are Unit Linked policies.  In the light of the above said decision of the Hon’ble National Commission it is clear that the holders of such policies are not consumers and hence the disputes in such policies are not sustainable before Consumer Forums .  Even if this issue is kept aside for deciding on completion of evidence as submitted by the petitioner, it will not do any good to them at the end.

            In view of the facts stated above and on relying on the decisions of Hon’ble National Commission it is found that the petition is not maintainable before this forum.

            In the result the I.A.98/15 is allowed and the original petition is dismissed as not maintainable.  No order as to cost.

Dated this the 30^th day of April 2016.

Date of filing:24.07.2014.

SD/-MEMBER                           SD/-PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT