Satish Kumar, complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.70,000/- alongwith policy benefits up to date interest @ 18% P.A. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for  harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased one Life Insurance Policy No.10669523 dated 20.07.2006 from the opposite party no.1 after deposit of Rs.2500/- and subsequently deposited quarterly installments upto the year 2013 to the tune of Rs.2500/- each. At the time of purchasing the policy the opposite parties assured to pay Fund Value alongwith other policy benefits at the time of maturity or surrender. The maturity period was ten years and surrender period was on the completion of three years from the date of commencement of the policy. Jiwan Kumari his wife was the beneficiary. His identity and address proof were supplied to opposite party no.1 as required at the time of purchasing the policy. However, his name and beneficiary Jiwan were written as Satish Kumar Kohal and Jiwan Kumari respectively by opposite party no.1 as is evident from the policy. On receipt of policy, he immediately approached to the opposite party no.1 and pointed out the discrepancy but it was told by the opposite parties no.1 & 2 that the said discrepancy i.e. addition of names in the policy will not reflect//harm him in any way at the time of maturity. He has been paying installment premium regularly and opposite parties no.1 & 2 accepting the same without any objection. He has further pleaded that as per provision 5 (ii) at para 7 of the policy “the policy may be surrendered at any time after completion of three years”. He has been approaching the opposite parties since January 2014 to surrender the policy but they are not receiving and accepting the policy for surrender and payment. By this act of the opposite party no.1 & 2 he is suffering harassment and mental agony at their hands which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. A legal notice was also issued to the opposite parties through Advocate which was duly served upon them but no reply has been received from the opposite party no.1 upto the stipulated period of notice. Hence, the present complaint was preferred with the prayed relief as hereinabove.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed the written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint with the malafide intention of abusing the process of this Hon'ble Forum. The present complaint is nothing but a suit for declaration on guise. The complainant has challenged the validity of the contract of insurance on the grounds of so called  fraud & wants this Hon'ble Forum to declare the Insurance Policy in question to be void.  The present complaint is thus, ridden with allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, but the present complaint miserably fails to co-relate the facts and incidents in order to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant fails to prove any act as alleged in the whole of the complaint that points out any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  It has been further stated that the complainant has purchased two insurance policy from the Insurance Company in the year 19^th July,2006, having policy No.10669523. After taking the benefit of this insurance policy, complainant has never requested to surrender the policy. Complainant himself approach to the officials and accordingly the policy was issued and if the policy holder is not satisfied with the plan then he has the right to cancel his policy under free look-in-period of 15 days which is available to the customer with the policy documents. The complainant paid the regular premium in the policy till 19^th October, 2013, till date the complainant has never approached the opposite party for the change of the name of the beneficiary in the policy. Now the policy is in paid up stage due to non payment of the premium and now complainant is making false stories only to grab the money from the opposite parties. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the policy terms and conditions, name of the beneficiary cannot be changed.  It has been next stated that complainant has never approach to the office of opposite party and never approach them for requesting the opposite party for the change of beneficiary or to surrender of the policies as it is all after thought story made out by the complainant to grab money from the opposite party and to given mental harassment. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties  tendered into evidence affidavit  of Sh.Amit Khanna, Associate Manager (Legal) OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.

6.         We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       At the outset, it was submitted by the counsel for the opposite party that the policy in question was admittedly a Unit Linked Policy and as such the claim made is not maintainable before the Foras under the Act. In support of his submissions he cited a judgment of Hon’ble National Commission ‘2013 (3) CPJ 203 N.C. (Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs. Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Company)’. It is very clear from the judgment cited above that the complaint in respect of the claim under ULIP (Unit Linked Insurance Policy) is not maintainable under the Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. We also find that the present disputed insurance policy is also a ULIP Policy as is clear from the documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3. The learned counsel for the complainant could not refute this submission so raised by the learned council for the opposite party.

8.      In view of our above discussion, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before the Fora under the Act, without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek his remedy before the appropriate Forum/Court.   

9.      Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

                      (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President     

ANNOUNCED:                                                      (Jagdeep Kaur)

June, 08 2015.                                                              Member.

*MK*