By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to pay the agreed and promised amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant and also direct the Opposite parties to pay cost and compensation.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant subscribed two life Insurance Policy from the Opposite party through an agent named Jyothi on 15.03.2010 on payment of Rs.3,00,000/- and on 23.03.2010 on payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. While subscribing the policy the Opposite parties assured that double of the policy amount could be paid after three years. The Complainant have surrendered these two policies before Opposite party after 3 years and the Opposite party paid only Rs.2,61,576.91 and Rs.14,435.13 respectively for each policy. The Opposite parties committed deficiency of service by not paying the assured amount. The Complainant had to incure heavy loss due to this and aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to all Opposite Parties and all Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1^st to 3^rd Opposite parties, 1^st to 3^rd Opposite Parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum since it is time barred. The cause of action arised on 2010 and the complaint is filed in the year 2015. More over, refund of premium paid will not lie since premium is paid to cover the risk for a given period. As per proposal form, the policy is given as per mandate. The Opposite Parties duly paid the surrender value in accordance with policy terms and conditions. The complainant not used freelook period of 15 days in this case objecting the terms. There is no where in the terms that the Complainant would be eligible for double the policy amount as alleged by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st to 3^rd Opposite Parties. In the version of 4^th Opposite Party, 4^th Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant subscribed two policies from 1^st Opposite Party. At that time the Complainant was residing at Feroke. This 4^th Opposite Party and the Unit Manager visited the Complainant and explained the details of the policy. After fully understanding the policy terms, the Complainant joined in to the scheme. The Complainant signed the application form only after filling the same. All other allegations are false. The Complainant is an MBA holder having full knowledge about the policy. Unit Manager is not impleaded and hence there is non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 4^th Opposite party.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for considerations.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite

Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Opposite Parties documents are marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.A1 is the original policy in which the Complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/-, and Ext.A2 is the original policy in which the Complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/-. Exts.B1 and B2 are the proposal forms surrender details. Admittedly both policies are unit linked policy and the amount deposited by the Complainant will be utilized for providing units under share market. As per policy, the complainant can surrender the policy at any time after completion of 3 years and the surrender value will be payable after deducting the applicable surrender charges. After getting policy, the Complainant can avail free look period of 15 days in objecting the policy conditions and to terminate the policy. In this case, the complainant not used this facility. Admittedly the Complainant is a MBA holder having much knowledge in business field and his contention that he do not know anything about the policy cannot be believed. The Forum is of the opinion that the Complainant is not a layman and he should be more vigilant in depositing huge amount in share market and its fluctuations. The complainant not produced any document to prove that the Opposite parties assured double amount of the deposited amount on surrender after 3 years. The complainant have to prove his case with cogent and convincing evidence. On perusal, the Forum found that there is a question of law that if a person deposits huge amount in share market with an intention to gain more profit, whether that person is coming under the definition 'Consumer' as envisaged in Consumer Protection Act. The Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.712/12 on 28.02.2014 ruled that the policy being a unit linked policy, such policies are speculative in nature and the disputes relating to the same are not entertainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under Consumer Protection Act. This order is passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the light of the ruling pronounced by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2013(2)CPR Page 389(NC). On perusal of entire evidence, the Forum found that as per question of law and as per question of fact also the Complainant failed to prove his case. Hence the Forum found no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of January 2017.

Date of Filing:11.02.2015.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Abdulla K.V Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Policy dt:23.04.2010.

A2. Policy. dt:23.04.2010.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Proposal Forms.

B2. Copy of Proposal Forms.