ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

The complainant had invested a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- in a plan namely Bajaj Allianz New Secure policy of the OP vide policy number 0026908047.  The grievance of the complainant is that at the maturity he has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- instead of the deposited amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest. The complainant has taken up the matter with the Ops but to no result.  The Ops have filed a complaint and has filed a written statement. It has denied any deficiency  in service claimed on its part and has claimed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has claimed that it has acted in terms and conditions of the policy purchased by the complainant. It has taken preliminary objections

1. That no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the answering respondent party as per the permissible maturity value amounting to Rs. 1,35,095/- under policy number 0026908047 stands already paid to the complainant by the OP strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and the said amount was credited to the bank account of the complainant vide NEFT transaction SIN00101Q1948294 dated 01.10.2011 and the complainant accepted the said maturity value amount without any protest towards full and final settlement of all his claims under the policy in question. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
2. That the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint as the answering op has already discharged its contractual obligation strictly in accordance with the express terms and conditions of the policy and the contract of insurance under the policy stands fully performed on the part of OP and the policy stands terminated upon payment of maturity value. Further, no promise as to the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest was ever made by the OP and no such promise is the part of the contract of insurance between the complainant and the OP. The policy holder as well as the insurer under the life insurance policy are strictly bound by the terms and conditions of the policy, hence the oP has therefore discharges its legal ability under the policy. Thus, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he stopped to the file the instant complaint against the OP.  the complaint as such is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed at the outset.
3.  That the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and correct facts from this Hon’ble Forum just to derive illegal financial gains by misleading this Hon’ble Forum.  The complainant has made false averments in the complaint and  has failed to show as to how the OP is deficient in service when the permissible amount of maturity value has already been received by him strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Unit Linked “New Secure First” policy purchased by him.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as the claim was expeditiously processed and the amount was credited to the bank  account of the complainant.  Thus, the complaint merits dismissal on this score alone. The table showing the amount payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy is reproduced hereunder:

4. That the complainant is debarred to file the instant complaint as he himself purchased a Regular Premium Unit Linked Policy knowing well that the policy in question would participate in the investment performance of underlying funds only and the performance of funds is subject to market and other risks.  The complainant was fully aware that the investment risks under the policies to be borne by him only and the value of underlying assets may increase or decrease depending upon the  market & other conditions.  The maturity value under the policy amounts to fund value as at the date of maturity underthe policy and the same stands already paid to the complainant. Thus, the question of earning the interest under unit linked policies does not arise and the complainant has as such, filed a false and frivolous complaint just to mislead this Hon’ble Forum which merits dismissal in limine.

On merits, it has explained the condition in Para 3 of the parawise reply which is also reproduce as under:

3.

We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

     The learned counsel for the OP has pointed out that the complainant had purchased the unit linked insurance policy which was subject to market and other risk.   He has contended that the value of the units purchased by the complaint had gone down because of the market conditions and it has paid to the complainant the maturity value as per the terms and conditions of the policy.   The complainant on his part has not refuted the above position.   We are, thereore, of the considered opinion that the complainant who has been paid maturity value of the policy purchased by him cannot complainted that the amount paid to him is lesser than what he ha invested.  There was an inherent risk in the investment made by the complainant for which the complainant ought to have taken care of at the time of investment rather than the stage of maturity.  We, therefore, see no merits in the complaint lodged by the complainant which is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................