Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/351

HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

JANARDHANAN - Opp.Party(s)

SAJI ISSAC

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOS. 351/14 & 140/15 

 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 31.07.2015

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

APPEAL NOS.351/14

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

IInd floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, 

N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi,

Mumbai-400 011.

: APPELLANTS

2. The Branch Manager,

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Kasaragod Branch, Kasaragod.P.O,

Kasaragod.

 

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

 

            Vs.

 

1. Janardhanan,

S/o  P. Ambadi,

Poroli House, Ambalathara,

Achikanam.P.O, Anandashram (Via),

Kasaragod Dist.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2. P.K. Anilkumar, S/o Ramakrishnan Nambiar,

Velloor.P.O, Payyanur, Kannur, Kerala.

 

(R1 by Adv: Sri. Aniyoor T Ajithkumar)

 

APPEAL NOS.140/15

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

R/by its Managing Director,

Ramon House, H.T.Prakash Marg,                                : APPELLANT

169, Backbay Reclamation,

Mumbai-400 020.

 

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

 

            Vs.

 

Murali Kavvayi, S/o Gopalakrishnan,

Molothumkuzhi, Kavvayi.P.O,

Kanhangad 671 315, R/by his Power-

Of Attorney Holder, Shivprasad,

S/o Seetharam, Sreeprasadam,                                      : RESPONDENT

Chedi Road, Uppilikkai, Nileshwar,

Hosdurg Taluk.

 

(By Adv: Sri. G. Gopidas)

 

COMMON JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

In both these  appeals common questions are involved. Therefore these 2 appeals are disposed of by a common order.  Appeal.351/14 is filed against the order of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.128/13 dated, May 19, 2014, and Appeal.140/15 is filed against the order of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.341/12 dated September 23, 2014.

2.      In both the 2 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 both the appeals 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 will get bonus also and that 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 both 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 surrender value of the policy.

5.      In CC.128/13, Ext.A1 to A4 and B1 to B6 were marked and in CC.341/12 Exts.A1 and Ext.B1 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 complainants with interest.  Opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said orders of the Forum.

6.      Heard the counsels 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 complainants are not maintainable. Therefore both these appeals have to be allowed and the complaints have to be dismissed.

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

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.