Present: 1. Sri.P.K.Sasi, President.
2. Smt. Sheena.V.V., Member.
3. Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
30th day of November 2016
C.C.486/15 filed on 20/08/15
Complainant : D. Christalrajam, D/o K.Eenose,
Peace Cottage, Melemukk, Kuttichal,
Trivandrum, Pin – 695 574 Now residing at
Thaivelikkakath House, Green valley Street,
C/o Varghese Shaju, G.R.N. House No.14
Pananchakam, Mannuthy,
Thrissur – 680 651
(In person)
Opposite Parties : 1) Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
On India bulls centre, Tower – 1, 15th &
16th Floor, Jupiter Mill compound, 841,
Senapathi Bapat Marg, Elphinston Road,
Mumbai – 400 013.
2) Birla Sun Life Insurance Company,
Thrissur, 3rd Floor, West Fort Tower, Civil
Lane , Ayyanthole, Thrissur – 680 003
3) TVM Office, E.D. Heights, 5th Floor,
M.C. Road, TC 2/3240 (13) Pattom Palace
Kulangara Ln., Pattom, Trivandrum,
Kerala – 695 004.
(By Adv. Jecko Joy, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President
The case of the complainant is that she has purchased a Insurance Policy through the insurance agents of opposite parties. The policy was BSLI Saral Wealth Plan and she paid 3 early premiums altogether Rs.31,620/-. It was told by the insurance agents, after remitting three year premium the complainant need not pay any amount and she can collect the insurance amount of Rs.70,000/- after three years. Believing the words of the agent the complainant who is separated from her husband purchased the policy. She has also joined another policy and paid Rs.30,450/- as onetime payment, believing the promise of Rs.1,74,000/- after three years. Accordingly, after three years the complainant approached the opposite party whereas, they have not shown any interest towards the claim submitted by the complainant. Because of the illegal act of the opposite parties the complainant sustained severe mental agony and financial loss. According to the complainant as per the policies she is entitled to get Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 1,74,000/-. By denying that, the opposite parties committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed for getting relief.
2) Being noticed on the complaint the opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed version. The opposite parties however, admitted the policies they categorically denied all the averments stated in the complaint. According to the opposite parties the complainant has applied for 2 policies of BSLI Saral Wealth and those policies were issued in the name of complainant subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated by the opposite parties that the complainant has not paid the premiums properly and the policies got lapsed accordingly. The opposite parties denied the allegation that the policies were missold to the complainant. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that the policies purchased by the complainant was Unit Linked Policies. The premium amount received from the complainant is invested in the investment fund option selected by the complainant. The opposite parties further contented that the complaint is not maintainable since, the complainant has purchased Unit Linked Policies which are Speculative in nature and for speculative gain. They further submitted that they have not committed any sort of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service towards the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration is that
1) whether the complaint was maintainable ?
2) whether there was any unfair trade practice or
deficiency in service ?
3) if so, what cost and relief ?
4) The complainant appeared before the Forum and submitted proof affidavit in which she has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail, 2 Policies produced and marked as Ext. P1 & P2.
5) From the side of opposite parties authorized representative submitted counter proof affidavit in which she has affirmed and explained all the contentions raised in their versions in detail. Opposite parties produced seven documents which are marked as Ext. R1 to R7. Ext. R1 is the copy of Proposal Form; Ext. R2 is the copy of Policy Contract; Ext. R3 is the copy of Policy provisions; Ext. P4 is the copy of Policy Account Statement; Ext. R5 is copy of another Policy Account Statement and Ext. R6 is copy of Letter dtd.09/05/13 received from the complainant and Ext. R7 the reply sent by the opposite parties dtd. 04/6/13. Opposite parties filed detailed argument notes and we heard both sides in detail. According to the complainant she was misguided by the insurance agents. She has not received any amount from the opposite parties. Whereas, the opposite parties has contented that the complainant has purchased 2 Unit Linked Policies and she was not paid subsequent premiums hence, policy became lapsed. She is only entitled to get the surrender value of the policy if any. The opposite parties strongly contented that the complaint is filed based on Unit Linked Policy the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the compliant as per the Hon’ble National Commission’s decision.
6) We have gone through the contents of affidavit filed as well as the documents produced from both the sides. It is very clear from the documents available before us that the policies purchased by the complainant were Unit Linked Policies. It is the settled position as far as the Unit Linked Policies are concerned in Ram Lal Aggarwalla case the Hon’ble National Commission has found that Unit Linked Policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such the policy holder of such policies are not consumers and disputes relating to such policies are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum. In the light of above mentioned, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Accordingly the two issues are also dispensed with.
In the result we dismiss this complaint without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of November 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
M.P.Chandrakumar Sheena.V.V. P.K.Sasi, Member Member President.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 & P2. 2 Policies
Opposite Parties Exhibits
Ext. R1copy of Proposal Form
Ext. R2 copy of Policy Contract
Ext. R3 copy of Policy provisions
Ext. P4 copy of Policy Account Statement
Ext. R5 copy of another Policy Account Statement
Ext. R6 copy of Letter dtd.09/05/13
Ext. R7 reply sent by the opposite parties dtd. 04/6/13.
Id/-
President
