Manmohan Singh complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.68,900/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 10.02.2010 alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.

2.           The case of the complainant in brief is that he has obtained a life premium policy No.000565435 dated 14.02.2016 from Aditya Birla Sun Life Financial Insurance Company Ltd. Earlier known Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance and its office was located at Gurdaspur while policy was purchased. He paid Rs.90,000/- towards premium of the policy during the years 2006,2007 and 2008. The company on his own terminated the said policy on 14.2.2017 and informed him. Till date the company had paid only Rs.7851.32/- as gross surrender value vide their cheque No.846554, which was encashed on 15.04.2017 by him. He visited Birla Sun Life, Branch at Amritsar during May 2017 to inquire about status of his policy. He was shocked and surprised to learn when company representative informed him that his policy have been terminated by them and the company has forwarded at his home address a cheque of Rs.68,900/- dated 08.02.2010 which was never received by the policy holder nor credited in any of his Bank accounts till date. Moreover, company representative told him that in fact they have sent a cheque of Rs.68,900/- on account of partial cash withdrawal but the same was received back in same registered envelope containing cheque with endorsement by postal authorities that “Addressee could not be traced out” Photocopy of the document handed over by the said Insurance Company to him with remarks of undelivered cheque No.637369. The said company has terminated the policy on his own and misappropriated his money to the tune of Rs.90,000/- that was paid by him to the company in the form of premium from 2006 to 2008 i.e. 10 years back whereas the said company paid him back only a sum of Rs.7851.32/-. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. A legal notice dated 1.11.2017 was sent to the said company to which they replied that they have forwarded cheque No.637369 dated 8.2.2010 for Rs.68,900/- and Cheque No.846554 dated 17.02.2017 for Rs.7851.32/-, whereas cheque for Rs.68,900/- was never delivered to him. Hence, this complaint.

3.          Upon notice, the OPs filed the written version through their counsel taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the Hon'ble Forum. Actually, complainant has suppressed material facts from this Hon'ble Forum and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The policy under question bearing No.00565435 was issued by the company on the basis of the information provided by the Life Assured in the proposal form. The complainant had applied for BSLI Classic Life Premier having benefit period of 16 years and had opted to pay premium of Rs.15,000/- yearly. The complainant had paid three premiums for three years and thereafter, the opposite party received an application from the complainant dated 29.1.2010 for partial cash withdrawal under the policy. As per the policy provisions an amount of Rs.69,900/- was duly paid to the complainant vide cheque No.637369 dated 09.02.2010. Now vide this complaint the complainant has brought to the notice of the company that he has not received the cheque and hence the company is ready and willing to re-send the cheque. It was further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the fund value under the said policy was unable to sustain the administrative charges and thus got terminated on 14.02.2017. The gross surrender value amounting to Rs.7851.32 as per the policy provisions has been duly paid to the complainant as admitted by him in the complaint. Since the opposite parties have acted within the four corners of the statutory provisions, no case of deficiency in services can be said to have arisen and as such the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Forum. On merits, the OPs have repeated the same objections/averments etc while denying and rebutting all the other pleadings/allegations made in the body of the complaint and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs. The OP3 was served with the notice cum summons but it preferred to remain absent and thus were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.03.2018.

4.              Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C6, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5.             Counsel for the opposite party no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Kshama Priyadarshini, Senior Chief Manager Ex.OP-1 alongwith copies of other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

6.           Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite party has sent a cheque of Rs.68,900/- dated 08.2.2010, which was never received by complainant nor credited in any his bank accounts till date. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the opposite parties has argued that as per the policy provisions an amount of Rs.68,900/- was duly paid to the complainant vide cheque no.637369 dated 9.2.2010. He further argued that if the complainant has not received the disputed cheque, the Company is ready and willing to re-send the cheuqe of Rs.68,900/- to the complainant. Before going into the merits of the case we would like to discuss one point which we have noticed during the scrutiny of file and also while listening to the arguments of counsel for OP1 and 2. Counsel for OP mentioned Ex.C-2 as relevant and important because this is a document placed on the file by complainant himself and it clearly proves that policy in dispute is a Unit Linked Policy and this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide Unit Linked Plans. On page 4 of Ex.C-2 it is clearly mentioned under the head “Policy Values” and “Policy Premium details” that this is a Unit Linked Policy. And law is now well settled that such 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 Courts. On this score also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Honourable National Commission while dismissing the RP # 658 of 2012 titled - ‘Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd., has observed that,

“The further allegation of the petitioner/complainant that the money had been transferred from one fund to another without his consent resulting in substantial reduction in the total value of the investment is also not acceptable because it depends on the market volatility and the value may go up or come down depending upon the market condition. It is also not disputed that in the meanwhile the petitioner/complainant had surrendered the policy bond and got the money prematurely after deduction of mortality charges and other charges as per the terms of the policy. The investment made by the petitioner/complainant was to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties. The State Commission, Odisha in First Appeal no.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt Abanti Kumari Sahoo vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have held that the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings of the State Commission, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such it is dismissed being devoid of merit”.

The Insurance Policies issued under the ULIP are speculative in nature and be treated as beheld for commercial purposes for earning profits and are thus outside the purview of the Consumer Act, hence not maintainable.

7.            In the light of the all above, we ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint under the Act being not maintainable on account of ULIP’s speculative nature and commercial purpose etc. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach the Civil Court for the necessary relief if he so desires and/or if so advised and in that case he shall also be eligible for seeking condo nation of delay under the Limitation Act’ 1963; for the time period spent here. The parties shall bear their own costs, here.

8.         Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:                  (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

July 16, 2019.                            Member                         Presiding Member

 MK