Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/4

THE MANAGER, IDBI FORTIS - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNNIKRISHNAN. P - Opp.Party(s)

SUJA MADHAV

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 04/14

 

JUDGMENT DATED:24.02.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

The Manager, IDBI FORTIS (IDBI FEDERAL),

Life Insurance Company Ltd.,                                       

Having its Branch Office at Ernakulam,

R/by its authorized signatory, Mr. Sony George,

Assistant Vice President-Legal,

Regd. Office, 1^st floor, Trade view Oasis Complex, : APPELLANT

Kamala City, PB Marg, Lower Parel (W),

Mumbai – 400 013.

 

(By Adv: Smt. Suja Madhav)

 

            Vs.

 

1. Unnikrishnan P, S.K. Bhavan,

Moolamattom P.O, Idukki-685 589.

 

2. The Manager,

Federal Bank, Moolamattam Branch,                           : RESPONDENTS

Moolamattam P.O, Idukki.

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the 2^nd opposite party in CC.205/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, challenging the order of the Forum dated 1^st August, 2013 directing the 2^nd opposite party to pay to the complainant  Rs.60,000/- along with cost of Rs.2000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant joined in a Health Insurance Foundation plan with an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and annual premium of Rs.20,000/- with a policy term of 10 years on November 04, 2009.  Complainant paid 3 years premium totaling to Rs.60,000/-.  At the time of joining the policy first opposite party represented to the complainant that after 3 years at any time complainant can close the policy and the amount paid with bonus shall be paid to the complainant which will come at least double the policy amount.  Even after 3 years when complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the return of the amount paid, he refused.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming the premium amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest and compensation.

3.      The first opposite party is Manager, Federal Bank, Moolamattom Branch.  He in his version contended that only after explaining the details of the policy complainant joined in the policy.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.  Second opposite party is Manager IDBI FORTIS Life Insurance Company Limited, Ernakulam.  He in is version contended before the Forum that only after explaining the terms and conditions of the policy complainant joined the insurance policy.   

4.      Exts.P1 and P2 series were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and directed him to pay to the complainant Rs.60,000/- being the premium amount paid by him with a cost of Rs.2000/-.  The 2^nd opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

Counsel for the appellant argued that since the policy in dispute is a unit linked policy.  Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  We find force in the above contention.  Admittedly the policy in dispute is a unit linked policy. National Commission in Ramlal Agarwala Vs. Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC) has found that policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share market, which is for speculative gain complaint does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision we hold that complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the Act.  That being so the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In the result appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum allowing the complaint is set aside.  Complaint is dismissed as found not maintainable.  Complainant can approach the other appropriate Fora like permanent Lok  Adalath to redress his grievance.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.