Order dictated by:
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. Sh.Raj Kumar has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased one product i.e. Exide Life Prospering Life Plus from Opposite Parties i.e lice insurance policy No.03055338 on 28.2.2015 with Annual Premium of Rs.2 lacs with the assurance of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 that the mode of premium in this product is single time annual premium and the facts regarding the mode of premium were also mentioned on policy broacher as advertise by Opposite Parties to complainant and as well as in Opposite Parties email/ website also. It is further fact that Opposite Parties with the intervention with each other has mislead and mis-represent complainant in regard to the aforesaid policy in question which is gross deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. It is further mention over here that very utter surprise at when complainant has received intimation from the office of Opposite Parties goodself in regard to payment of premium for aforesaid policy through message on mobile on 8.2.2016 of complainant accordingly complainant has approached in the office of Opposite Parties and Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant that the aforesaid message has been wrongly sent to the complainant and complainant need to no pay any further premium as the plan of the policy is single premium policy and the same has been paid through cheque transaction. But with utter surprise complainant once again received same message from the Opposite Parties and being inquiry complainant came to know that the Opposite Parties have mislead the complainant by giving him designation of the insurance advisor and the policy which has been purchased by the complainant, the same has been changed by the Opposite Parties byway of misrepresentation and mislead. Then the complainant told the Opposite Parties for the surrender of the policy, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to it. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties may kindly be summoned as accordance with law and it is further prayed that the Opposite Parties may kindly directed to refund the premium of Rs.2 lacs alongwith interest from the date of payment.
b) complainant may kindly be awarded with cost of litigation and compensation of harassment.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 ,2 & 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the Opposite Parties denied all the allegations and averments made in the instant complaint, except those which are specifically admitted in this written statement or otherwise dealt with and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. The complainant being an educated person had voluntarily availed the life insurance policy from Opposite Parties and in this regard submitted proposal form dated 10.2.2015 proposing for ‘Exide Life Prospering Life Plan’ an unit linked insurance product offered by Opposite Parties which was duly approved by the IRDA a statutory body constituted by the Act of the Parliament. The feature of the above mentioned plan were duly explained in detail and only after understanding the same in its entirety, the complainant had opted for the said plan. The premium opted by complainant was Rs.2 lac to be paid annually, for a premium paying term of 15 years and sum assured under the said policy was Rs.14 lacs for tenure of 15 years. The complainant had confirmed these facts in his declaration made in the proposal form dated 10.2.2015. Further, the complainant being fully satisfied with product feature had signed the benefit illustration from which it is event that complainant had duly understand the policy. In addition to above complainant also undergone medicals under the said policy. Based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium payment term opted and declaration made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the complainant to be true and correct and after receipt of initial premium the Opposite Party had issued a policy bearing No. 03055338 on 3.3.2015 alongwith the terms and conditions of the policy and a welcome letter to the complainant. The details of the policy are given in para No.4 of the written statement filed by Opposite Parties. It is stated that Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition has stated that complainant had invested the money in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment which was made for the purpose to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. hence the Opposite Parties prays this Forum to dismiss the said complaint on this ground alone. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up same and similar pleas as taken up by Opposite Parties in preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C 10 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Madhu N.R.manager Legal Ex.Op1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and submitted that he purchased one product i.e. Exide Life Prospering Life Plus from Opposite Parties i.e lice insurance policy No.03055338 on 28.2.2015 with Annual Premium of Rs.2 lacs with the assurance of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 that the mode of premium in this product is single time annual premium and the facts regarding the mode of premium were also mentioned on policy broacher as advertise by Opposite Parties to complainant and as well as in Opposite Parties email/ website also. It is further fact that Opposite Parties with the intervention with each other has mislead and mis-represent complainant in regard to the aforesaid policy in question which is gross deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. It is further mention over here that very utter surprise at when complainant has received intimation from the office of Opposite Parties goodself in regard to payment of premium for aforesaid policy through message on mobile on 8.2.2016 of complainant accordingly complainant has approached in the office of Opposite Parties and Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant that the aforesaid message has been wrongly sent to the complainant and complainant need to no pay any further premium as the plan of the policy is single premium policy and the same has been paid through cheque transaction. But with utter surprise complainant once again received same message from the Opposite Parties and being inquiry complainant came to know that the Opposite Parties have mislead the complainant by giving him designation of the insurance advisor and the policy which has been purchased by the complainant, the same has been changed by the Opposite Parties byway of misrepresentation and mislead. Then the complainant told the Opposite Parties for the surrender of the policy, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to it.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the Opposite Parties denied all the allegations and averments made in the instant complaint, except those which are specifically admitted in this written statement or otherwise dealt with and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. The complainant being an educated person had voluntarily availed the life insurance policy from Opposite Parties and in this regard submitted proposal form dated 10.2.2015 proposing for ‘Exide Life Prospering Life Plan’ an unit linked insurance product offered by Opposite Parties which was duly approved by the IRDA a statutory body constituted by the Act of the Parliament. The feature of the above mentioned plan were duly explained in detail and only after understanding the same in its entirety, the complainant had opted for the said plan. The premium opted by complainant was Rs.2 lac to be paid annually, for a premium paying term of 15 years and sum assured under the said policy was Rs.14 lacs for tenure of 15 years. The complainant had confirmed these facts in his declaration made in the proposal form dated 10.2.2015. Further, the complainant being fully satisfied with product feature had signed the benefit illustration from which it is event that complainant had duly understand the policy. In addition to above complainant also undergone medicals under the said policy. Based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium payment term opted and declaration made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the complainant to be true and correct and after receipt of initial premium the Opposite Party had issued a policy bearing No. 03055338 on 3.3.2015 alongwith the terms and conditions of the policy and a welcome letter to the complainant. The details of the policy are given in para No.4 of the written statement filed by Opposite Parties. It is stated that Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition has stated that complainant had invested the money in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment which was made for the purpose to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. hence the Opposite Parties prays this Forum to dismiss the said complaint on this ground alone.
8. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the policy bearing 03055338 dated 28.2.2015 obtained by the complainant is Unit Linked Insurance Policy. In this regard, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties relied upon the documents produced and proved on record by the Opposite Parties i.e. proposal form in which the complainant himself has opted the investment of his entire premium amount in Moderator i.e. in the form of moderator shares in open market. In the declaration for Unit Linked Products signed by the complainant, the complainant has admitted that he fully understood that investment in this product is subject to market risks and the actual rate of return may be higher or lower than what has been illustrated. Same fact has been mentioned in Benefit Illustration where the complainant has directed the Opposite Parties for investment of his funds in open market in the form of, it has been admitted by the complainant that earnings will increase or outpace inflation. In the terms and conditions of the policy document So, all these documents fully prove that the policy obtained by the complainant is United Linked Insurance Policy and the complainant himself has opted to invest his entire premium amount 100% in the moderator share in the open market in order to earn profit. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and others decided on 23.04.2013 that where the investment made by the petitioner/ complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policies to gain the profit, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party. Hon’ble State Commission, Orisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in case Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited 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. Similar are the facts of the present case as the complainant has directed the Opposite Party to invest his amount of premium in the share market to gain profit. Investment in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act.
9. Resultantly, we hold that the present complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties, as such, the complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the same before the appropriate court/ authority having proper jurisdiction. Both the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 16.03.2017.
