Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/664/2014

Mr. Mohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Ajmer Lal Pundeer

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/664/2014
Date of Institution	:	07/10/2014
Date of Decision	:	07/04/2015

 

Mr. Mohan Lal resident of # No. 238, First Floor, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh 160045.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

HDFC Standard Life Insurance, Madhya Marg Branch, Ground Floor, SCO 139-140, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017 through its Branch Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

 

 

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

                                                                       

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. A.L. Pundeer, Counsel for complainant
		Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OP

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Mohan Lal, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against HDFC Standard Life Insurance, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that in the month of June 2008 one of the agents of the OP approached him and offered one of its policy product namely “HDFC Unit Linked Young Star Plus II Policy”. The complainant was told that after continuation of first 3 years of policy, the policy would be made paid-up. The complainant accepted the offer as explained by the agent, filled the proposal form and paid the first monthly installment amount of Rs.7,000/- on 5.6.2008. The complainant was delivered the policy schedule covering his life for sum assured of Rs.4,20,000/- commencing from 5.6.2008 to 5.5.2031.  The complainant went on remitting the premium from the date of policy i.e. 5.6.2008 till March 2011 continuously without any break. According to the complainant, he was interested to continue the policy for 3 years only upto the stage of “Policy Paid Up”, thus, he discontinued the remittance of regular monthly premium.  On 25.6.2011 (Annexure C-6) the complainant received intimation regarding Policy Paid Up. On 18.7.2011(Annexure C-7), the complainant received confirmation of fund switch. On 14.3.2012, after about 9 months, the complainant received a telephonic call from the OP informing that the renewal premium cheque amounting to Rs.10,070/- had been incorrectly credited to his policy. The complainant visited the office of the OP and told that the error/omission had occurred in OP office and that he was ready to deposit Rs.10,070/- against the cheque amount which was wrongly credited in the policy but he was told that the policy could be reinstated by paying the lump sum amount of premium up to March 2012. The complainant kept on visiting the office of the OP numerous times and discussed his constraints and also submitted written request on 13.2.2013 (Annexure C-10) but to no avail.  On 26.2.2013 (Annexure C-11), the complainant received a letter from the OP informing that the policy is in lapsed status due to non-payment of renewal premium since 5.4.2011 and his request of Partial Lapse Reinstatement was not accepted.  Aggrieved by rejection, the complainant again submitted a written request dated 3.9.2013 (Annexure C-12) and also sent a legal notice on 15.9.2014 (Annexure C-13) but to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         During the pendency of the complaint, the OP has 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 OP that the complainant signed a proposal form, copy of which is Annexure OP-1, for purchasing HDFC Unit Linked Young Star Plus II Policy in pursuance of which policy No.11905974 was issued by the OP on 6.6.2008. 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 his reply, the complainant has contended that in the quoted judgments, the dispute was regarding unit linked insurance policy and the claim made thereunder and further in those cases the investment made by the complainant was for gaining profit.  However, in the instant case, the complaint is not for any claim under the said policy but for acceptance of difference amount of Rs.10,070/- towards the reinstatement of the policy as a paid up policy or for the refund of the total premium of Rs.2,41,930/- with interest. It has been averred that the money deposited by the complainant is lying in the books of the OP and further investment was not made through share market/speculative transaction, therefore, the application filed by the OP is liable to be dismissed.
4.         We have gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties and heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties on the application.
5.         It has been urged by the learned counsel for the complainant that the issues decided in the Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) by the Hon’ble National Commission and the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in consumer complaint No.96/2011 titled as Smt. Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. (supra) are in respect of the settlement of claim under unit linked insurance policy whereas the claim in the present complaint is quite different because the complainant has requested for revival of the policy to the stage of paid up position and he has not prayed for any benefit or claim under the policy. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant went on remitting the regular premium @ Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of commencement i.e. 5.6.2008 till March 2011. In the month of April 2011, the complainant was informed that premium due as on 5.4.2011 stood adjusted. In May 2011, the complainant remitted Rs.3,930/- towards the premium as per advice of the OP.  It has been contended that since the lock up period of three years of continuity of policy had been completed in the month of May 2011, the complainant discontinued the remittances for further renewal premium.  He has argued that the fund value of the policy as on 5.6.2011 is mentioned as Rs.0.00 vide letter Annexure C-6 meaning thereby funds upto 5.6.2011 were not invested in market by the OP.  The learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon National Chlorides Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.-2007 (2) CLT 368 (NC), Sutlej Textile and Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank-2010 (2) CLT 638 (NC), Paramount Iron and Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another-2007 (2) CLT 438 (NC), Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/s Costal Project Private Limited-2013 (4) CLT 167 and Unicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Lal Singh-2013 (1) CLT 667 and has strenuously argued that the OP has refunded the premium amounting to Rs.3,930/- which was paid in the month of May 2011 and is indulging in unfair trade practice for promoting its business, therefore, the interest of the policy holder is being grossly prejudiced and the complaint filed by him is maintainable.
6.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.  A perusal of the copy of the proposal form annexed with the application filed by the OP and copy of policy Annexure C-1 show that the policy purchased by the complainant is HDFC Unit Linked Young Star Plus II Policy. It is made clear in the standard policy provisions that the policy of the complainant is a regular premium unit linked life insurance policy.  Being a unit linked policy, the policy will participate in the investment performance of the funds of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited chosen by the complainant to the extent of the allocated units. 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. and others (supra) shows that 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.”

7.         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.         We are of the opinion that in view of the law laid down in the above cited rulings, the present complaint filed by the complainant, Sh. Mohan Lal is not maintainable. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complaint is not for any claim under the said policy and the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the difference amount of Rs.10,070/- towards the reinstatement of the policy is devoid of any substance because the fact remains that it is a unit linked policy in respect of which the claimant has made a prayer for the following reliefs :-

“1)    Accept the difference amount of Rs.10070/- towards reinstatement of Policy as at Paid Up Policy as per policy terms and conditions of the Policy and all benefits be extended to the complainant as explained in Para 11 & 12 as per policy in question.

                                OR

2)     OP be directed to refund the total premium of Rs.2,38,000/- + 3930 = 2,41,930/- paid by the complainant to the OP towards premium under the policy from June 2008 till May 2011 alongwith interest @ 18% Per Annum from the date of June 2011 till realization.

        xxx                           xxx                           xxx”

The rulings of the Hon'ble National Commission produced by the complainant are prior to the decision dated 23.4.2013 in Ram Lal Aggarwala’s case (supra). So far as the ruling Unicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Lal Singh (supra) is concerned, the same relates to the Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Commission and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, the same cannot be followed.

9.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the application filed by the OP and the same is allowed. Since the consumer complaint filed by the complainant, Sh. Mohal Lal is not maintainable, the same is dismissed as such, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/	Sd/-
07/04/2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President