BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.05 of 2015

Date of Instt. 08.01.2015

Date of Decision :09.09.2015

Ajay Mahajan son of Balbir Raj Mahajan, R/o H.No.17, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Jalandhar City-144001.

..........Complainant Versus

1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, through its CEO, Managing Director, through its Director/General Manager/Manager/ Representative, ICICI Prudential Life Towers, 1089, Appa Saheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.

2. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, through its CEO, Managing Director, through its Director/General Manager/Manager/ Representative, Vinod Silk Mills Compound, Chakravarthy Ashok Road, Ashok Nagar, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101.

3. Aman Madan R/o H.No.922, Urban Estate Phase-2, Jalandhar City, Punjab(Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, Jalandhar Branch).

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Rajat Chopra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.NPS Thind Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh.Naval Sehgal Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that in March 2009 Aman Madan i.e opposite party No.3 approached to the complainant saying that his senior has warned him to submit resignation in case if he does not get a new insurance policy by today itself and that he needs a new insurance policy to be done of any new prospect and thus requested to the complainant to take an insurance policy. The complainant agreed to take insurance policy on the repeated requests of opposite party No.3 to take an insurance policy and just to save his job. The complainant in order to save the job and looking at the equity market at the recent lows in 2008, agreed to take a smart kid insurance plan with more than 90% to be allocated to the equity market and rest in the debt funds to which opposite party No.3 confirmed and the complainant paid a cheque of Rs.5000/- for the first installment (Rs.5000/- was to be paid half yearly for minimum three years) and was issued a policy No.11482578-Smart Kid-New UL regular plan. Then, thereafter opposite party No.3 never followed to the complainant for any kind of service related to the policy issued and the complainant kept on depositing the due amount of premium online but when the complainant realized that equity market was at recent highs and three years of boundation of withdrawal has also completed, the complainant approached to the office of ICICI prudential for the withdrawal saying that when he had invested, equity market index Nifty was around 2500 and at the time of withdrawal, the index was around 5400 and hence his money would also have got doubled but when the complainant got his money back, the complainant was surprised to see that the amount refunded to him was far lesser than the amount paid by the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the amount as per the index at the time of maturity which was around three times invested amount alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite parties No.1 & 2 pleading that the complainant, who is educated and signed the proposal form in English, has admitted that looking at the equity market agreed to take a Smart Kid Insurance Plan considering his own interest, this admission shows that the complainant is a wise person and looking at the trend of the equity market the complainant took the policy on its own and without being influenced by anyone. It is correct that a policy No.11482578-Smart Kid-New UL regular plan was issued to the complainant. It is submitted that the company was not aware as to what transpired between the complainant and the opposite party No.3. The company is not privy to any such transaction between the complainant and the opposite party No.3. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 denied that the complainant was never informed about any charges. It is denied that the company reduced the amount and refunded less then amount invested by the complainant. In fact the complainant has been refunded the amount as per the surrender value as applicable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The allegations of cheating and robbing people are absolutely false hence denied. It is denied that the company is playing fraud with the complainant and the company has supplied false information intentionally to the complainant. The entire allegations are false hence denied.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.3 pleaded that he was employee of opposite parties No.1 & 2 w.e.f 18.8.2008 till mid of November 2011. Thereafter, he left the job and joined HDFC Bank Ltd. This fact is in the knowledge of the complainant. There is no question of asking the complainant to take insurance policy as alleged. There was no contract by opposite party No.3 to follow the complainant and the kind of services alleged by the complainant. The complainant never suffered any loss as alleged. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant deposited the amount of his own and has made the withdrawal of the amount from opposite party No.1, meaning thereby the complainant has made the transactions of his own, not at the instance of the opposite party No.3. He denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 and R2 and closed evidence. Evidence of opposite party No.3 is closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. Without going into merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant can not be treated as consumer because he invested the money in unit linked policy. In para 4 of the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that looking at the equity market at the recent lows in 2008, agreed to take a smart kid insurance plan with more than 90% to be allocated to the equity market and rest in the debt funds to which opposite party No.3 confirmed and the complainant paid a cheque of Rs.5000/- for the first installment (Rs.5000/- was to be paid half yearly for minimum three years) and was issued a policy No.11482578-Smart Kid-New UL regular plan. Ex.R2 is policy document. In the title of the policy document, it is mentioned that ICICI Pru Smart Kid-New Unit-Linked Regular Premium. Further in the policy document, it is also written that in this policy, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. So from the above facts, it is evident that the policy taken by the complainant was unit linked and more than 90% funds were to be invested in the equity market. The investment in equity market is speculative in nature and this forum is not to enforce any speculative transaction. In Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2011, decided on 4.7.2014 by our own Hon'ble State Commission, it has been held as under:-

"At the outset, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the policy in question was admittedly a Unit Linked Policy and, as such, the claim made thereunder is not cognizable by the Foras under the Act. In support of his submission he cited III(2013) CPJ 203 (NC) (Ram Lal Aggaarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr). Learned counsel for the complainant could not refute this submission so raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party.

In above said judgment the dispute was regarding Unit Linked Insurance Policy and the claim made under that policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making the 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 Vs. 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".

On the basis of the findings so recorded by the District Forum it came to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable under the Act and was dismissed. Against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which did not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the District Forum and accordingly rejected the appeal memo at the admission stage. Dissatisfied with that order the petitioner filed a revision before the Hon'ble National Commission. It was held that there was no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting inference and the revision was dismissed. It becomes very much clear from this judgment that complaint in respect of the claim under Unit Linked Insurance Policy is not maintainable under the Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. It appears that on account of that reason itself the learned counsel for the complainant has not refuted the submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party".

8. To the same effect is the law laid down by our Hon'ble State Commission in Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs Gurjit Singh, First Appeal No.407 of 2011, decided on 22.9.2014.

9. The ratio of above cited authorities is applicable on the facts of the present case. Since the complainant invested in unit linked investment plan or policy, as such he can not be treated as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

10. Consequently, the present complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed as such with no order as to cost. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or any other appropriate forum or court. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

09.09.2015 Member Member President