DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB-152026 (PUNJAB).

                                                            C. C.  No.           68  of 2014

Instituted On:    03-06-2014

                                                            Decided On:      09-03-2015

Davinder Singh son of Mahinder Singh aged about 39 years, resident of Village Mehrajwala, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

                                              -Complainant.

Versus

1.       Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd, regional office, Near Hanuman Chowk, First Floor, above Lilliput Showroom, The Mall, Bathinda through its Manager or authorized signatory.

2.       Birla Sun Life Insurance Co., Opposite Gill Petrol Pump, Kotkapura Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib through its Manager or authorized signatory.

                                            (Deleted as per order dated 21.08.2014)

3.       Surinder Singh son of Jarnail Singh, resident of House No.2318, Near New Grain Market, Maur Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

-Opposite Parties (OP).

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (68 of 1986) as amended up to date.

Quorum:      Sh. A. K. Mehta, President.

                    Smt. Meenakshi, Member.

Present:        Sh. K.S. Brar, Brar Advocate for Complainant,

                    Sh. V.K. Goyal Advocate for OP-1.

                    OP-3 Ex-parte.

ORDER

(A.K. Mehta, President)

1.                 Complainant Davinder Singh has come to this Forum with a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called C.P. Act) against Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. Opposite Parties (OP) for refund of Rs.1,30,000/- deposited by complainant with OP and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental tension and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses on the allegations that one agent Surinder Singh alongwith two official of OP insurance company visited the complainant and offered one Birla Sunlife Insurance traditional plan saying that he has to pay Rs.1,20,000/- only for three years i.e. Rs.40,000/- yearly and thereafter OP will pay him Rs.4,80,000/- after 10 years and if he wants to withdraw the same after five years, he will be given interest of Rs.30,000/- on the principal amount and medical claim up to Rs.40,000/- would be given every year; that the agent of OP got the signatures of complainant on blank proposal form and obtained Rs.10,000/- on 07.03.2009; that after some days,  OP issued policy No.002656830 on 17.03.2009 but the complainant failed to understand the documents; that complainant paid Rs.10,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and  Rs.20,000/- on 07.03.2009, 07.11.2009 and 12.05.2010 respectively; that he also issued a cheque worth Rs.50,000/- but the same was not encashed; that complainant paid Rs.80,000/- on 03.03.2012; that after five years, he visited the office of OP for obtaining amount of the policy but came to know that he has to pay Rs.40,000/- per year up to 25 years and there is no medical claim in the plan; that the agent of OP misled the complainant about the terms and conditions of the policy; that this act of OP is deficiency in service besides unfair trade practice; that the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.1,30,000/- from the OP alongwith interest; that the complainant requested OP so many times to pay the amount of policy but OP refused to pay about a week before filing the complaint. Hence this complaint is filed.

2.                 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs and OP-1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint on the legal objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that complaint is not maintainable as complainant has suppressed the material facts; that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not valid as per C.P. Act; that the complainant has created a false story to mislead this Forum; that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that intricate questions of law and facts are involved and elaborate evidence is required; that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP; that complainant is not Consumer of the OP; that complainant is barred by his act and conduct to file the present complaint; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature. On merits the policy was admitted. It was asserted that complainant of his own opted to purchase BSLI Dream Plan Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy and filled the proposal form after understanding it. It was further asserted that within 15 days from the receipt of policy, the complainant had the option to get it cancelled by giving the reasons under the free look period, but the complainant did not do so; that the complainant concocted a false story just to get undue benefits from the Forum and to cause wrongful loss to the OP. It is further asserted that complainant paid 13 quarterly premiums and thereafter he did not pay the same and the policy lapsed due to      non-payment; that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. All other allegations of complaint were denied and contested on the same lines as were taken in the legal objections and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3.                 Parties were granted proper opportunities to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.

4.                 Complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. C-1, documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-7 and closed evidence. Similarly OP-1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Aakriti Manocha Ex. OP-1/1, documents Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/9 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents and evidence produced on the file.

6.                 Ld. Counsel for complainant contended that complainant was approached by agent Surinder Singh OP-3 alongwith officials of OP Insurance Co. and they allured the complainant to purchase insurance policy of OP. He contended that they assured the complainant that he is only to pay Rs.40,000/- per year for three years and after ten years, he would be paid Rs.4,80,000/- and in case he requires the deposited amount then after five years, complainant would be paid the deposited amount along with interest of Rs.30,000/-. He contended that complainant believing those persons, agreed to purchase the insurance policy of OP and they got signatures of the complainant on different papers without telling the contents of the same to the complainant. He contended that complainant paid amount of Rs.1,30,000/- in three years and as complainant required money, he requested OP insurance company after five years to refund the amount deposited by him alongwith interest, but the OP refused to pay the amount and rather asked the complainant to pay the installments of money for many more years. He contended that the act & conduct of the OP Insurance Co. amounts to deficiency in service and it has also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such complaint is required to be allowed and complainant is entitled to deposited amount alongwith interest as assured to him alongwith compensation and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.

7.                 Ld. Counsel for OP contended that complaint is not maintainable in this Forum as this Forum have no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the present complaint. He contended that complainant is not consumer under the policy and as such, have no cause of action to file the present complaint. He contended that complainant have concealed material facts and has not come to this Forum with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief as details of the policy were made known to the complainant and he understood all the relevant provisions of the policy and even signed declaration to this effect. He contended that complainant opted for Unit Linked Insurance Policy after understanding the relevant provision of the Insurance Policy and as such the insurance policy in question is a investment policy and  policy holder is to bear the investment risk. He also contended

that even otherwise complainant was told about free look period of fifteen days and policy was sent to the complainant and even after receipt of the same, the complainant have not approached the OP Insurance Co. with any objection regarding the insurance policy or for its cancellation within the said free look period of fifteen days and it amount to admission of the terms & conditions of the policy by the complainant. He further contended that Unit Linked Policy being of speculative nature cannot be challenged in the Consumer Forum and its jurisdiction is barred under the act and as such, complaint is without merit and same is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

8.                 After going through the case and the evidence and  documents produced on the file, this Forum is of the considered view that the policy in question is a Unit Linked Policy and as such, the complaint under the said policy is not maintainable in this Forum. Complainant have proved application form filled by him for issuance of insurance policy in question and it shows that the application was for Birla Sun Life Insurance Dream Plan Policy. The documents attached with the application form i.e. illustration documents clearly shows that it is investment plan policy and policy holder is to bear the investment risk as policy is a  Unit Linked Policy. The application

form  Ex.C-1 bears the signatures of complainant. Ex.OP-1/2 describe Birla Sun Life Insurance Plan and it clearly shows that it is long term Unit Linked Insurance Plan. In case titled Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2013 (III), Consumer Protection Judgements, page 203 (NC). The complainant took insurance policy relating to Unit Linked Policy and the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi observed that the policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share marked which is for speculative gain, complainant does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and complaint is not maintainable. In the case in hand also, the insurance policy in question is Unit Linked Insurance Policy which is for speculative gain and as such, this Forum does not have jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

9.                 In the light of above discussions, the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and the same is dismissed as such. However, complainant is free to avail his remedy in other Forum under the law if so advised though subject to other conditions. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the Parties as per rules and the file be consigned to records after due compliance.

Dated: 09-03-2015.

                                                  Smt. Meenakshi         A. K. Mehta

                                                              Member              President