Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/265

THE MANAGER, HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAMEELA ABOOBAKKER - Opp.Party(s)

SAJI ISSAC

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOS.264/14, 265/14 & 266/14

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 31.07.2015

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

APPEAL NOS.264/14

The Manager,

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Branch Office, Pala Road, Thodupuzha.P.O,             : APPELLANT

Idukki District.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Saji Isaac.K.J)

 

            Vs.

 

Aboobakkar K.H,

Kainickal House,  Muthalakkodam.P.O,                       : RESPONDENT

Thodupuzha.P.O, Idukki District.

 

(By Adv: Sri.G.K. Sudheer & P.Rajomohan)

 

APPEAL NOS.265/14

The Manager,

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Branch Office, Pala Road, Thodupuzha.P.O,             : APPELLANT

Idukki District.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Saji Isaac.K.J)

 

            Vs.

 

Jameela Aboobakkar,

Kainickal House,  Muthalakkodam.P.O,                       : RESPONDENT

Thodupuzha.P.O, Idukki District.

 

(By Adv: Sri.G.K. Sudheer & P.Rajomohan)

 

 

APPEAL NOS.266/14

The Manager,

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Branch Office, Pala Road, Thodupuzha.P.O,             : APPELLANT

Idukki District.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Saji Isaac.K.J)

 

            Vs.

Aboobakkar K.H,

Kainickal House,  Muthalakkodam.P.O,                       : RESPONDENT

Thodupuzha.P.O, Idukki District.

 

(By Adv: Sri.G.K. Sudheer & P.Rajomohan)

 

COMMON JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

In all these appeals common questions are involved. Therefore these 3 appeals are disposed of by a common order.  Appeal.264/14 is filed against the order of CDRF, Idukki in CC.266/13 dated, December 30, 2013 and Appeal.265/14 is filed against the order of CDRF, Idukki in CC.263/13 dated November 30, 2013 and Appeal 266/14 is filed against the order of CDRF, Idukki in CC.264/13 dated, November 30, 2013.

2.      In all these appeals the appellant is the same ie HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited.  Forum has allowed the complaints directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainants the premium amount paid by them for the policy.

3.      The case of the complainants in all these 3 complaints is that they have joined in the insurance policy issued by the opposite party and paid a premium, that they were made to believe that after 3 years of payment of premium at any time they can close the policy and that they will get bonus also, but after 3 years the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainants.  Therefore complainants filed the complaints for return of the premium amount and claiming compensation.

4.      The opposite parties in all these complaints contended that the policy was unit linked for a term of 10 years that due to market fluctuations, value of the fund depreciated and that complainants are entitled to only the surrender value of the policy.

5.      In CC.266/13, Ext.P1 and R1 (series) were marked.  In CC.263/13 Ext.P1 & P2 and Ext.R1 were marked.  In CC.264/13 Ext.P1 and R1 (series) were marked before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to return the premium amount paid by the complainant with interest.  Opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said orders of the Forum.

6.      Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondent/complainant.

7.      The appellant mainly contended that the policy issued is a unit linked policy for speculative gain and that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  There is force in the above contention.  The copies of policies produced before the Forum show that it is a unit linked policy with speculative gain.  The National Commission in Ramlal  Agarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013 (2) CPR 389 NC has held that if the money of the complainant can be invested in share market for speculative gain the matter does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  As the policies are unit linked policies for speculative gain, in the light of the principles laid down in the above decision we hold that complaints are not maintainable.  Therefore these 3 appeals have to be allowed and the complaints have to be dismissed.

In the result the above 3 appeals are allowed.  The impugned orders of the Forum allowing the complaint are set aside and all the three complaints are dismissed as found not maintainable.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.