BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 13^th March 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.217/2014

(Admitted on 23.06.2014)

Mr. John Mascarenhas,

S/o Late Anthony Mascarenhas,

Aged about 67 years,

R/at Jillden, Sirlepadpu,

Behind Kulshekar Church,

Mangalore  575005.

                                                             ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri NBPR)

VERSUS

1. Manager/Competant Authority,

    Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd,

    (Reg. No.121)

    Corporate Office,

    9^th and 10^th Floor, Bldg. No.2,

    R-Tech Park, Nirlon Compound,

    Next to Hub Mall, Behind Oracle Bldg,

    Goregaon (East),

    Mumbati, Maharashtra  400063.

2. The Manager/Competant Authority,

    Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

    (Reg No.121)

    Having its registered Office, H Block,

    1^st Floor, Deerubai Ambani Knowledge City,

     Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra  400710

3. The Manager,

     Reliance Life Insurance,

     (Anil Deerubai Ambani Group)

     Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd,

     Maximus Commercial Complex,

     3^rd Floor, light house hill road,

     Hampankatta, Mangalore.

4. The Senior Territory Manager,

    Reliance Life Insurance,

    (Anil Deerubai Ambani Group)

     Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd,

     Maximus Commercial Complex,

     3^rd Floor, light house hill road,

     Hampankatta, Mangalore.

                                                           …..........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri KSNR)

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.2, No.3 & No.4: Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainant claims he was on the representation of opposite parties representative one Mr. Lancy Menezes, Reliance Life Insurance Advisor one Vijaya M.S Sales Manager that the complainant pays Rs. 50,000/ on premium for three consecutive years.  As illustrated by opposite parties under a chart after lapse of 10 years complainant getting Rs.5,66,126/ and that surrender after 3 years will get Rs.2,13,147/  Complete of 4^th year Rs.2,49,429/ of then 5^th year Rs.2,93,211/ and 6^th year Rs.3,44,847/, 7^th year Rs.4,05,726/, 8^th year Rs.4,77,502 and 9^th year Rs.5,62,126/ obtained policy on 31.8.2007.   When complainant required fund for his wife’s surgery sought benefit from opposite parties of Rs.2,93,211 contrary to the earlier commitment and assurances received a legal notice of 7.10.2013 contrary to the earlier promises legal notice was issued to opposite parties.  Contending deficiency in service by opposite parties seeks the relief claimed in the complaint.

II.     For Opposite party in version a Preliminary objections and submissions  was raised on unit linked life insurance policies the National Commission in a judgment dated 23.4.2013 held that such policies involved speculative gains trading in a shares in commercial transactions and are not maintainable as and in Ram Lal Aggarwalla v/s Bajaj Allianz life insurance corporation.  The complaint is false and not maintainable.  The complainant surrendered the policy and surrender value of Rs.1,30,517.56 was transferred to complainants account.   Hence the compliant is not at all maintainable.    The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.  The premium paying terms under the said policy is 10 years and Annual was Rs.50,000 and was last date of premium was 31.8.2016 and assured amount was Rs.2,50,000/.    Due to non payment of the subsequent renewal premium amount the policy 28.9.2013 and thereafter surrender value of Rs.1,30,517.56 Paid to complainant.   Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.

2.     In support of the above complainant Mr. John Mascarenhas affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C10 as detailed in the annexure here below.   On behalf of the opposite party has not filed affidavit evidence as recorded in the order sheet dated 04.03.2016.

III.    In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      The learned counsels for both sides filed nots of arguments.      We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by the party and notes arguments of the parties.  Our findings on the points are as under follows

              Point No.  (i) : Negative

              Point No.  (ii): Does not survive

                                   for consideration

              Point No. (iii) : As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):   The purchase of the policy by complainant with opposite party is not in dispute.  The nature of the policy as unit linked insurance policy is also not in dispute.  As seen from the copy of the insurance policy produced in the case it is clear that it is a unit linked policy.  Ex.C6 is a list mention benefit illustration of Unit Linked Plan (Regular) it mentions the policy year end growth/Surrender/Death Benefit at the end of policy/age.   However there is no mention the month payable from 4^th year on wards as mentioned year end growth.  At end of the every year from this document itself it is clear that the policy was unit linked.  In fact genuineness of Ex.C6 itself is doubtful as there is no mention on to who issued it.  It contain no signature or name of opposite party in this document.  Hence Ex.C6 cannot be believed.

2.   Even as seen from the copy of the policy issued to complainant by opposite party produced by opposite party it shows the policy is unit linked and the condition of the agreement is based on performance.  Hence that it is an unlinked policy is not at all in doubt.  In fact complainant has not produced the copy of policy issued to him by opposite party.  The complainant wants to build up a case as Ex.C6 a bald printout without any details of who issued it.

3.     In Ram Lal Aggarwalla vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Others the National Disputes Redressal Commission by order dated 23.04.2013 it is mentioned that in the question is an stock market unit linked policy it is well settled has taken for investment and the investment in share market is speculative for gain.   Speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and as the claim of the complainant on that count was rejected.  As seen in the case on hand similar is the case.  Hence it is not necessary for us to go into detail on the rest of the contention of the complainant.  Hence the surrender value of complainant sought was paid by opposite parties and that the one claimed being one in respect of a speculative investment in a unit linked policy we are of the opinion that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence we answer point No. in the negative.

POINTS No. (ii):    This point in the circumstances does not consider for survive.   Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.

POINTS No. (iii):    Wherefore the following

ORDER

                The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by steno on the computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 13^th March 2017)

              MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

   (T.C. RAJASHEKAR)                         (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

 D.K. District Consumer Forum                D.K. District Consumer Forum

  Additional Bench, Mangalore                  Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. John Mascarenhas

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: The office copy of the legal notice

Ex.C2:  The Postal receipts (4 in nos.)              

Ex.C3:  The acknowledgment

Ex.C4: The acknowledgment

Ex.C5: The acknowledgment

Ex.C6: The chart issued by the Opposite Parties               

Ex.C7: The copy of the letter dated 24.09.2013 issued by the opposite parties

Ex.C8: Prescription issued for the hospital

Ex.C9: Prescription issued for the hospital

Ex.C10: Bill issued by Fortis hospital’s Limited

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Nil

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated: 13.03.2017                                    PRESIDENT