Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Complaint Case No.541 of 2014
Date of institution : 15.10.2014
Date of decision : 18.4.2016
Mrs.Navdeep Kaur w/o Sh.Jagatpeer Singh r/o 156, Sudarshan Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.
..............Complainant
Versus
Exide Life Insurance Company Limied earlier ING Vyasa Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer having one of its office at SCO 44, Nagpal Towers-II, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar service through its Branch Manager.
...............Opposite party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( as amended upto date )
CORAM : Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member
Sh.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Present : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for complainant
Sh.Amit Bhatia,Adv.counsel for opposite party
ORDER :
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
1 Smt.Navdeep Kaur, complainant filed the instant complaint u/s
-2-
12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant took policy from the opposite party through policy No.00597547 for her investment purpose for earning her livelihood by means of self employment.
Complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainant was in need of some money for her personal use on her investment against her policy No.00597547 with the opposite party. She approached the opposite party and enquired about the surrender value, she will get against the policy. Opposite party officials on 25.8.2014 informed the complainant that she will get an amount of Rs.67661/- on her investment as surrender value. The complainant immediately offered the opposite party for refund of the said amount of surrender value and surrendered the said policy with the opposite party. Complainant was shocked to receive the amount of Rs.55905.29 P against the said surrender of the policy with the opposite party against the promise of Rs.67661.48 P made by the opposite party and that too after a delay of certain weeks. Opposite party made less payment of Rs.11756.19 P to the complainant against the promised surrender value of the policy for which she approached the opposite party and also the concerned officials who had made promise as per the sale conditions of the policy. Complainant made written representation to the opposite party which was received by the
-3-
opposite party on 24.9.2014. Opposite party till the filing of the complaint
has not refunded the amount of Rs.11756.19 P to the complainant despite various requests. The aforesaid acts of the opposite party is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and malpractice and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Complainant has suffered lot of mental tension, agony, harassment and besides financial loss for which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- to the complainant.
2 On notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version by taking preliminary objection therein inter alia that complainant is not maintainable either on law or on the facts of the case. As per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, complaint is mandatorily required to be filed within the period of 2 years from the date of cause of action. In the present case, as the complainant is questioning the terms and conditions of the concluded contract where cause of action if any has arisen on 20.2.2007. However, the complaint is admittedly filed in the year 2014 I.e.after the expiry of period of 7 years from the date of cause of action. Thus, present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation without proceeding further. That in he first paragraph of the complaint, complainant has availed the policy for investment purpose to gain profit. It is well settled law that when the complainant invests amount
-4-
for the purpose of profit then it is more of a commercial purpose. Hence, complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1987. That present complaint is false and incorrect and filed with malafide intention. It is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum. Complainant is guilty of suppressing material and pertinent facts relevant for the adjudication of the present complaint and as such, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
3 On merits, facts narrated in the complaint are denied as complainant submitted proposal for the life insurance with the opposite party proposing for “ Creating Life Child Protection Plan” on 20.2.2007, a product offered by the opposite party which is approved by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority ( IRDA ) a statutory body created by an Act of the Parliament and features of the above mentioned plan were explained in detail to the complainant and only after understanding the same in its entirely, the complainant voluntarily opted for the said plan. Sum assured opted by the complainant was Rs.1,40,000/- and premium mode ws annual for term of 15 years and policy tenure is 15 years. Complainant has also chosen Accident Death Disability Dismemberment Benefit Rider of Rs.1,40,000/- and confirmed these facts in her proposal form dated
-5-
20.2.2007 which was duly signed by her. Complainant had nominated her daughter Miss.Roop Kanwal Kaur as nominee under the said policy. Detail of the policy are given below for ready reference of this Forum :
Name of the Life Policy Holder Mrs.Navdeep Kaur
Policy No. 00597547
Product ING Creating Life Child Protection Plan
Policy Commencement Date 28 February 2007
Risk Commencement Date 28 February 2007
Maturity Date 28 February 2022
Sum Assured Rs.1,40,000/-
ADDD Rider Rs.1,40,000/-
Premium Amount and Mode Rs.10,185/- Annually
Name of the Nominee & Relationship Miss.Roop Kanwal Kaur ( Daughter )
4 Policy schedule alongwith welcome letter, terms and conditions applicable to the policy were sent to the complainant at the address provided by her in the proposal form on 1.3.2007 through AFL courier vide AWB No.457850203037802 which was duly delivered to the complainant, The receipt of the policy was acknowledged by the complainant. It was further stated that as per regulation 6(2) of ( Protection of Policy holder's interest ) Regulation 2002 issued by IRDA, the policy holder is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and has the option to cancel the
-6-
policy by stating the reason for his/her objection within 15 days of receipt of policy bond. In such a case, the company shall refund the premium received from her for this policy (after deducting the proportionate risk for the period of risk cover and expenses incurred by the company on account of medical examination and on stamp duty charges). The said facts were clearly intimated in the welcome letter issued to the complainant alongwith policy schedule and terms and conditions. It is further stated that complainant never raised any objection to the terms and conditions thereof within 15 days of the receipt of policy documents. Hence, contract of life insurance which company had with the complainant becomes legally concluded and it was presumed that complainant was satisfied with terms and conditions so issued to her. So, the complainant as such is legally estopped from disputing the terms and conditions of legally concluded contract. Other facts contained in the complaint were specifically denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5 In order to prove her case, complainant Smt.Navdeep Kaur appeared in witness box as her own witness and filed her duly sworn affidavit ex.C-1 in support of her allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record documents ex.C-2 to C-4 and closed the evidence.
-7-
6 In rebuttal, opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Chetan P.General Manager Legal ex.OP1/A, copy of proposal form dt.20.2.2007 ex.OP1, copy of policy schedule alongwith terms and conditions applicable to the policy ex.OP2, copy of surrender request form alongwith other documents ex.OP3, copy of letter dt.3.9.2014 ex.OP4, copy of specimen signatures ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.
7 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record placed on file.
8 Ld.counsel for the opposite party vehementally contended that complainant availed the insurance policy in dispute and cause of action arose to the complainant on 20.2.2007 as the policy was concluded on that date. But however, the complainant has preferred to file the instant complaint only on 15.10.2014 I.e.after a lapse of over 7 years. As per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, limitation for filing a complaint is two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. As such, the instant complaint was palpably hit by limitation. Ld.counsel for the opposite party has further contended that it is quite evident that it was an investment made by the complainant, as such, policy in dispute being Unit Linked Policy, complainant does not fall within the purview of Consumer as defined u/s 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Reliance in this regard
-8-
has been placed upon Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and other decided on 23.4.2013 by Hon'ble National Commission, wherein the investment made by the petitioner/complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policies to gain profit, it was held to be invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/complainant was not held to be a consumer of the opposite party.
9 On the other hand, ld.counsel for the complainant has refutted the arguments put forward by the Ld.counsel for the opposite party that instant complaint is not hit by limitation. Complainant could get the policy in dispute cancelled during the period of operation of the policy. She applied for cancellation of the policy in dispute vide application, copy whereof is ex.C-3. Opposite party promised to pay an amount of Rs.67661.48 P as surrender value to the complainant vide intimation letter is ex.C-4. But however, the opposite party did not keep its word and refunded an amount of Rs.55905.29 P only to the complainant which fell short to the tune of Rs.11756.19 P to the promised amount and the same amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. It has further been contended that policy in question is not a Unit Linked Policy and arguments advanced by the Ld.counsel for the opposite party in
-9-
that context are not tenable in the eye of law. It was further contended that complainant was deprived of Rs.11756.19 P against the promised surrender value of the policy in dispute. Despite that she is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum.
10 We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.
11 There is no dispute that insurance policy in question, copy of which is ex.OP2 was availed by the complainant from the opposite party. It is also not disputed that complainant applied for cancellation of the policy vide application ex.C-3. It is also not disputed that opposite party promised to pay a sum of Rs.67661.48 P as surrender value. But, however, later on paid an amount of Rs.55905.29 P only which fell short to the tune of Rs.11756.19 P than the promised amount. But however, in the instant complaint, complainant is not proved to be a consumer because insurance policy availed by the complainant was a unit linked policy. In the complaint itself, the complainant claimed the policy in dispute to be an investment for earning her livelihood by means of self employment. But however mere stating that complainant has invested the amount to earn her livelihood by means of self employment is not sufficient for bringing the complainant within the ambit of Consumer under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is stated that commercial activity fell beyond the scope of
-10-
term Consumer. Reliance in this context can be placed upon Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and other decided on 23.4.2013 by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 wherein it has been held that where the investment made by the petitioner/complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policies to gain 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 has 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 Hon'ble State Commission dismissed the appeal.
12 The law laid down in the authorities relied upon 'supra' is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The complainant is not proved to be a consumer, as such, she cannot maintain the instant complaint. Consequently, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs immediately and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.
18.4.2016 ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Anoop Sharma ) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa )
Member Member
