Complainant Amarjit Singh has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) against the  opposite parties seeking the issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite party to pay him Rs.1,44,000/- alongwith interest. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation for illegal harassment to him and also mental agony or any other relief which may be granted to him, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased new policy bearing No.000033179 from the opposite party no.1 which has commenced on 10.08.2010 for Rs.72,000/-  and paid the same. The opposite party no.1 assured him the deposited amount of Rs.72,000/- for total 12 installment within three years i.e. one installment amounting to Rs.6,000/- and he will receive double amount i.e. Rs.1,44,000/- after five years from the date of purchase of policy i.e. 10.08.2010. He deposited all the installments and period of five year have expired in the month of August 2015 and he approached the opposite party and requested them to pay the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- and also completed all the formalities of the opposite parties but the opposite party no.1 put the matter pending with one pretext or the other. The act of the opposite parties not to make the payment of the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- to him is illegal, null and void, against the law and instruction. Hence this complaint.

3.     Upon notice, the opposite parties insurers appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint; the complaint was not maintainable. The matter in question relates to commercial activity as the policy in question is a ULIP Policy and thus the same relates to commercial activity. Further it has been clearly mentioned in the policy conditions that the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. It was further submitted that National Commission and Hon’ble Apex Court has held in many cases that the commercial activities/transactions are barred under the Consumer Protection Act. The Apex court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583 has held that the commercial activity is barred under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It was further submitted that the policy issued to the complainant is DLF Pramerica Wealth the policy in question is unit link plan and same is directly linked to share market which is commercial purpose and speculative in nature and hence the present complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action has ever been arisen in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant had taken a policy i.e. DHLF Pramerica Super Wealth plus Regular Premium from opposite party vide policy no.00033179. The policy date of commencement of policy was 10.08.2010 and the term of the policy was 20 years and i.e. upto 10.05.2030. Therefore the complainant was bound as per the Terms and Conditions of the policy to deposit the premium for 20 years but the complainant has failed to deposit the premium after the third year. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CI, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex C13 and closed the evidence.

5.        On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Parmal Singh D.M. Legal Ex.OP1, alongwith the other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.

6.           We have thoroughly examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants measured against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective-side clients. We find that the present dispute has arisen at the allegedly inadvertent issuance of the Insurance Policy in question with the governing ‘terms’ different & varying from the ones ‘promised’ (and/or as ‘explained’ & made to be understood) by the opposite parties insurers to the complainant. The glaring gap ‘difference’ between the two sets of ‘varying-terms’ pertains to the ‘prime’ parameter of the Unit Linked Insurance Policy (ULIP) misunderstood as the Policy maturing to double the amount deposited regularly and continuously for three plan years; thus altering the very character ‘basics’ of the Policy and turning the same to be disputably ‘un-acceptable’.

7.        We understand that the Unit Linked Insurance Policies ULIPs being basically an investment for earning profits/gains and not the livelihood through self employment does not fall within the purview/adjudicatory jurisdiction of the consumer laws and as such the present complaint being out rightly non-admissible need be straightway dismissed. But, somehow the learned counsel for the complainant insists that there has been a definite hue of ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the insurers and as such the present complaint deserves an audacity in line with the cited court judgments on parallel ratio issues. We have respectfully read the cited judgment of the honorable UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in FA 130 of 2011 titled Bharatendu Sood and Anr.  Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd., 2012(3) CPJ 2 and find that it does not in any way assist the present complainant since it deals with an entirely different issue of inconsistent variance in growth and not of inadvertent issuance of policy with terms different to that offered. The other cited judgment of the same commission in FA 238 of 2014 deals with the payment of lapse police and not the issue in question.

8.        In the light of the all above, we ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint with however having provided liberty to the present complainant to avail him of other remedy(s) of his choice or advice as available in law and proceeded in accordance with the procedure as established in law. The parties shall bear their own legal expenses here and ’shall also be at liberty to avail of any other legal remedy in law as per their choice and available advice. 

9.         Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

      (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President   

Announced:                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 17, 2017                                               Member

*MK*