1.       The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No.653/2015 dated 10.10.2017.

2.       The case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that Respondent No.2, agent of Respondent No.1 Insurance Company advised him to take Unit Linked Insurance Policy from Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1. He was informed by Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 to pay a premium of Rs.2 lakhs per year and promised him a return of 40% after a period of five years. On his advice the Petitioner took the Unit Linked Insurance Policy and paid premium for two years and noticed from the website of Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 that the returns from the policy were less than that was promised to him by Respondent No.2. Having not received a satisfactory response from Respondent No.1/Insurance Company, the Petitioner approached the District Forum seeking refund of the amount paid by him.

3.       The case was contested by Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 that the said policy was a Unit Linked Insurance Policy with attendant market risk. The policy issued by them was a Unit Linked Insurance Policy for ten years and the policy holder could surrender the policy and seek refund as per the terms of the policy. The Petitioner had paid only two installments of the premium and thereafter discontinued making payments.

4.       The District Forum after hearing both the parties and on the basis of record passed the following order: -

“1.    The Complaint No.143/2014 is partly allowed.

2.        If the Complainant wants to renew this policy, the Opposite Party shall allow the Complainant to renew the policy without charging the penalty for 3^rd year.

OR

           In case the Complainant does not want to renew the policy the Opposite Party No.1 shall return the amount of premium paid by the Complainant after deducting the necessary charges as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

3.        No order towards the charges for mental agony and litigation expenses.

4.        Opposite Party shall comply with this order within 45 days from the date of outward of this order.”

5.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum Respondent No.1/Insurance Company preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing both the parties and also perusing the record passed the following order: -

“(i)     Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii)     The Insurance Company at the option of the complainant and as per the terms and conditions of the policy and if the terms and conditions of the policy so permit, may accept the premium for the third year of the policy along with charging necessary fees, penalty for accepting the  same under the terms and conditions of the said policy and if it is not possible within the terms and conditions of the policy then to pay to the complainant the surrendered value of the policy as per the terms and conditions of the said policy.”

6.       Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the Complainant filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

7.       Heard the Amicus Curiae appointed for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. The sum and substance of submission advanced by Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the Petitioner was that Respondent No.2 misguided the Petitioner/Complainant assuring him high returns on his deposit and thereby cheated him.

7.       Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Insurance Company submitted that the Petitioner/Complainant after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, had applied for an insurance policy. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was made aware that the policy was subject to market risk. Petitioner paid only two premiums of Rs.2 lakhs each and thereafter stopped paying further premium and as such the Petitioner defaulted in making payment of the insurance premium. The Petitioner being defaulter, should therefore be not granted any relief. Respondent prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition.  

7.       The Petitioner/Complainant purchased BSLI Platinum premium plan, vide policy No.004215124, with a sum assured of Rs.10 lakhs. Every year the Petitioner was supposed to pay Rs.2 lakhs premium for a period of 10 years. The policy also contained a notice of free look whereby, within 15 days of receipt of the policy document, the policyholder had a right to reconsider the same. Since it was a Unit Linked Policy, the returns on the policy were subject to market risk. On the Petitioner/Complainant requesting for making refund, Respondent No.1/Insurance Company expressed inability to refund the entire premium.

8.       Respondent No.1 contended that the Petitioner/Complainant did not fall within the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This argument was raised before both the Fora below, but both held that as the Complainant had taken the policy from Respondent No.1/ he was a Consumer of Opposite Party No.1.

9.       Both the Fora agreed that the present policy had inherent risk of market fluctuations, and therefore the contention of the Petitioner/Complainant that he did not get the return which he was assured, did not stand justified. Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 could not be made responsible for the market fluctuations. The policy clearly stated that the investment risk in the portfolio was to be borne by the policyholder. During the free look period the Petitioner could have withdrawn or he could have resorted to partial withdrawal of the policy after three years or could have availed the surrender value of the policy at any time as per policy provisions. There was, thus alternatives available to the Petitioner which he could have availed, rather than rush to the Court. The State Commission observed that they do not find it just and proper to direct Respondent No.1/Insurance Company to accept the premium for the 3^rd year without charging penalty, as directed by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum was modified by the State Commission and the Appeal was partly allowed.

10.     The policy document clearly mentions about the inherent investment risk in the portfolio which is to be borne by the policy holder. The policy also speaks about the free-look period which provides a policy holder to reconsider his decision within stipulated time, if he deemed necessary. It also provided for partial withdrawal from the policy, as also its surrender. In the present case the petitioner discontinued paying the premium after two years and did not seek revival of the policy. The policy conditions provide for several alternatives to the policy holder for any change of mind to make necessary corrections. The petitioner, instead of availing of the above alternatives, tried to shift his responsibility on the Respondents. We find no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.

11.     The Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. All the pending applications also stand dismissed.