Haryana

StateCommission

A/771/2016

RAM CHANDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHETAN RANA - Opp.Party(s)

ANIRUDH KUSH

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :   771 of 2016

Date of Institution:   24.08.2016

Date of Decision :    22.09.2016

 

Ram Chander s/o Sh. Sant Ram, Resident of House No.732, Basant Nagar, behind ESIC Hospital, Teji Road, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Desh Raj Mangal, Resident of House No.4, Professor Colony, behind Telephone Exchange, near Ambay Gas Agency, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.      Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Anirudh Kush, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated July 25^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby  the complaint was dismissed.

2.                The brief facts of the present case as can be gathered from the record are that Ram Chander-complainant/appellant, obtained three insurance policies from H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) through the respondents-opposite parties, under the plan HDFC Unit Link Young Star Policy. The details of the policies are as under:-

Sr.No.	Policy No.	Dated
1.	10173166	25.01.2005
2.	11154875	10.06.2006
3.	11154875	30.06.2006

 

3.                The complainant paid the premium for policy mentioned at Sr. No.1 up to 17.02.2011; for policy mentioned at Sr.No.2 up to 30.01.2009 and for policy mentioned at Sr.No.3 up to 05.09.2009. Thereafter he did not pay the premium and intended to surrender the policies and sought the refund of the premium paid by him alongwith interest. However, the Insurance Company offered the surrender value of the polices as per the terms and conditions of the policies. 

4.                The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the Insurance Company did not supply the terms and conditions of the policies at the time of issuing the policies and therefore those terms and conditions were not binding upon the complainant. 

5.                The District Forum after evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, dismissed the complaint observing as under:-

“11.   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for redressal of his grievance, (if so advised) and further the complainant can approach the Ops Insurance Company to proceed the Insurance Policy as per its terms and conditions. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC 583.”

6.                The solitary contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-complainant was that the complainant did not ask for cancellation of the policy within a period called ‘free look period’-exclusion clause. The appellant-complainant had invested his hard earned money to earn interest, so the Insurance Company was liable to refund the premium alongwith interest.

7.                The contention raised is not tenable. In Narinder Kaur v. Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited (S.C.D.R.C.), 2015(3) CLT 411, State Commission, Punjab by relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission observed as under:-

6. Even on the next count, we find that instant policy was Gold Premium Policy Scheme, which is Ex.C-2 on the record. It is recorded in it that this is Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy. The actual payment of the benefits in this policy will vary based on the actual performance of the investment funds invested by the assured. From perusal of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.C-2, we hold that it is Unit Linked Policy, which was taken by the life assured/Dalip Singh from the OPs. On this matter, the Hon'ble National Commission has held in "Ram Lal Aggarwalla v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited and UT Bank Ltd." reported in III(2013) CPJ-203 (NC) and observed as under :

" 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 v. 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.

It is evident that in the above-referred authority, it has been held that in the matter of Unit Linked Policy, the complainant invested the money just to gain profit and made its investment for commercial purposes and assured is not a consumer under the above policy. Our State Commission has also so held in Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2011, Date of Institution : 29.11.2011, Date of Decision : 04.07.2014 titled as " Smt Paramjit Kaur v. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. " by observing that it becomes very much clear from the Hon'ble National Commission in "Ram Lal Aggarwalla" ( supra) case that in respect of claim under Unit Linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business. We are bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the above-referred authority, which is applicable to this case. The complainants, thus, do not become the Consumer of the OPs with regard to this Unit Linked Policy as held in the above-referred authority.

7. In the light of our above discussion, we find no illegality in the order of the District Forum, calling for any interference therein. The order of the District Forum Patiala dated 18.07.2012 is affirmed in this appeal. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.”

 

8.                Besides, there is another aspect that the complainant purchased three policies after considerable intervals. If he had not received the terms and conditions in the first policy, he should have taken up the matter with the Insurance Company. The policies were sought to be surrendered after five years. Therefore, the complainant cannot plead ignorance of the terms and conditions of the policy.

9.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law enunciated above, the impugned order does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Announced 22.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL