Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/132/2015

Neeru Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.N. Kapoor

12 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/132/2015
Date of Institution	:	27/02/2015
Date of Decision	:	12/05/2015

 

 

 

Neeru Kapoor, Neeru Mechanicals Consultant Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.1, 2nd Floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh through Special Power of Attorney Sh. R.N. Kapoor

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 50-51 (2nd Floor), Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Ramon House H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra, India, through its Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. R.N. Kapoor, Special Power of Attorney of the complainant.
		Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Ms. Neeru Kapoor, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that her husband, Sh. R.N. Kapoor had been running policies with OP-1 and OP-1 advised him to surrender his earlier policies in lieu of purchase of a consolidated policy from the OPs. On the aforesaid representation, Mr. R.N. Kapoor surrendered his earlier running policies.  The complainant had duly intimated the OP that the new policy shall come with the one time investment scheme without any collateral policies like insurance scheme thereon. 

                According to the complainant, a Pension Super Plus Policy 2012 bearing No.15640515 having annual premium payment term was issued in her name for which payment of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was made on 11.12.2012.  It has been averred by the complainant that while the policy was issued on 18.12.2012, it was received on 21.10.2013 only that too after much hassling and reminding the OPs vide several e-mails and phone calls.  After going through the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant found several anomalies which were in complete contrast to the agreed terms and the policy was issued on annual premium payment term for ten years.  Therefore, vide letter dated 26.10.2013, the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy. Thereafter the complainant also served a letter/notice dated 24.7.2014 on the OPs seeking cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount, but she has not received any reply.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 

2.         During the pendency of the complaint, the OPs have filed an application for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable in the wake of the judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab. It has been contended by the OPs that the complainant signed a proposal form on 10.12.2012 for purchasing HDFC Unit Linked Pension Super Plus Policy in pursuance of which policy No.15640515 was issued by them on 18.12.2012. It has been alleged that the said policy is a unit linked policy whereby the investment is made through share market/speculative transactions and main motive for investment is for profits and gains. It has been alleged that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 23.4.2013, followed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in Consumer Complaint No.96/2011 titled as Smt. Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. decided on 4.7.2014 and First Appeal No.407/2011 titled as Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurjit Singh decided on 22.9.2014, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3.         In her reply to the application, the complainant has contended that the citations mentioned are not applicable as she had opted for saving plan as mentioned in the proposal form.
4.         We have heard the arguments addressed by the Special Power of Attorney of the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs on the application.
5.         The Special Power of Attorney of the complainant has contended that he purchased three policies after paying the premium of Rs.9.50 lakhs to the OPs.  He has contended that he was told by the OPs that it was a one time investment scheme without any collateral policies like insurance thereon.  The special power of attorney of the complainant has contended that he is not in a position to make payment of an amount of Rs.9.50 lakhs every year, therefore, a letter for cancellation was sent within the period of free look. The special power of attorney of the complainant has contended that the conduct of the OPs shows their fraudulent intention to hoodwink the investors and lure them into purchasing more of their policies which amounts to unfair trade practice.
6.         On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant has purchased a unit linked policy whereby the investment is made through share market/speculative transactions and main motive for investment is for profit and gains. He has drawn our attention to Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and has vehemently argued that the complaint in respect of the claim under unit linked insurance policy is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act; the money having been invested in speculative business.
7.         After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we feel that the arguments of the learned counsel for the OPs have considerable force and the same must prevail. The copy of the proposal form at Annexure C-9 itself shows that the complainant affixed her signature on unit linked pension proposal form. The copy of HDFC Life Pension Super Plus (Annexure C-8) purchased by the complainant shows that the fund allocation was 100% in Pension Super Plus 2012 –ULIF04818/06/12PenSuPls12101 fund.  All unit linked policies are different from traditional insurance policies and are subject to different risk factors.  In the said policy, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. The copy of judgment dated 23.4.2013 in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) shows that in that case the dispute was regarding unit linked insurance policy and the claim under that policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making following observations :-

“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.”

Pertinently, against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission which was dismissed. Dis-satisfied with that order, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble National Commission did not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission warranting interference.  The matter relating to unit linked policies was also agitated in Smt. Parmajit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited (supra) decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab on 4.7.2014 and Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs. Gurjit Singh (supra) decided on 22.9.2014 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab and it was held that the complaint in respect of the claim under unit linked insurance policy is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. 

8.         In view of the law laid down in the above cited rulings, the present complaint filed by Ms. Neeru Kapoor is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
9.         Apart from the above legal position, it is pertinent that the complainant in her letter dated 26.10.2013 (Annexure C-5) has alleged that she was cheated by the staff of the OPs.  A copy of the letter dated 24.7.2014 (Annexure C-6) sent by the complainant to the Managing Director of HDFC Standard Life Insurance also shows that she felt cheated and a fraud was played upon her. Fraud and cheating require detailed evidence, production of documents and cross-examination of witnesses which are beyond the purview of summary jurisdiction of this Forum.  Such questions can only be adjudicated in the civil court. 
10.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the application filed by the OPs and the same is allowed.  Consequently, the consumer complaint filed by Ms. Neeru Kapoor is not maintainable and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Before parting with the order, we should make it clear that the dismissal of the complaint shall not mean that this Forum has disbelieved the allegations of the complainant.  Unfortunately, in view of law laid down in the rulings mentioned above, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issues involved in this complaint before the appropriate Court/Forum. 
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/05/2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President