Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/459

THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIJI THOMAS - Opp.Party(s)

J S ASHOK KUMAR

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 459/16

JUDGMENT DATED:26.12.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

1. The Manager,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

YMCA Building, Near to Head Post Office,

Kottayam, R/by The Assistant Manager (Operations),

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Office, Padma Junction, M.G.Road,

Ernakulam, Cochin-35.

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

2. The Manager,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Jinu Plaza, Airport Road, Yervada,

Pune-411 006, R/by The Assistant Manager (Operations),

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Office, Padma Junction, M.G.Road,

Ernakulam, Cochin-35.

 

(By Adv: Sri. J.S. Ashok Kumar & Jeswin P. Varghese)

 

            Vs.

1. Giji Thomas,

Kurichiyel House, Kozha P.O,

Kuravilangadu, Kottayam District,

PIN-686 640.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2. Agent K.V John,

Ex. Manager, Kottayam District Co-operative Bank,

Koozhampala House, Manikavu, Kuravilangadu P.O,

Kottayam Dist-686 640.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 in CC.208/14 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 30, 2016 directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.45,000/- with interest and a cost of Rs.5000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant joined in a policy of the opposite parties, Bajaj Alliance Policy Scheme.  He remitted Rs.45000/- in total in three instalments.  On May 27, 2014 when complainant approached the opposite parties they informed him that they will disburse only Rs.25000/- to the complainant.  Therefore complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of Rs.45000/- with interest, compensation and cost.

3.      First opposite party is Sri. K.V.John the agent of opposite parties 2 and 3.  Second opposite party is the Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Kottayam represented by its Manager and 3^rd opposite party is its head office at Pune.  First opposite party remained absent before the Forum.  Second and third opposite parties filed a joint version contending thus before the Forum.  The policy issued a unit linked policy.  Therefore Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The policy issued is an 18 year policy with a premium of Rs.15000/- per annum and sum assured is Rs.75000/-.  He paid only 3 premiums and thereafter he defaulted.  Therefore complainant is only entitled to get surrender value of the policy.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      On the side of the complainants and opposite parties 2 and 3 they filed respective proof affidavits and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the complainant and on the side of the opposite parties Exts.B1 and B2 were marked before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to pay to the complainant Rs.45,000/- with interest and cost of Rs.5000/-.  Opposite parties 2 and 3 have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The only question which arises for consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable?

7.      On going through the records it is seen that the policy is a unit linked policy.  Therefore Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. National Commission in Ramlal Agarwala Vs. Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC) has found that policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share market, which is for speculative gain complaint does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision we hold that complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the Act.  That being so the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In the result appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum allowing the complaint is set aside.  Complaint is found not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.  Complainant can approach other appropriate Fora like Permanent Lok Adalath to redress his grievance.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI  :  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.