Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/605

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOVY C PILLAI - Opp.Party(s)

B KRISHNAKUMAR

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.605/15

 

JUDGMENT DATED:24.02.2016

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.,                                             

ICICI Prue Life Towers,1089,

Appa Saheb Marathe Marg,

Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025.                                       : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. Gautam)

 

            Vs.

Sri. Jovy C. Paily,

S/o Paily Choorakuzhiyil House,

Marangoly P.O, Neezhoor Via,

Kottayam-686 612, Kerala.

 

Now residing at:-

2391, Park View Place,                                                      : RESPONDENT

Baldwin, New York-11510,

R/by his Power of attorney holder-

C.P.Saji, S/o Paily Choorakuzhiyil House,

Marangoly P.O, Neezhoor Via,

Kottayam-686 612, Kerala.

 

(By Adv: Sri. T.A. Thomas)

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the  opposite parties in CC.248/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, challenging the order of the Forum dated April 17, 2015 directing the  opposite parties to pay to the complainant  Rs.4,94,000/- with interest and a cost of Rs.5000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant is working in Newyork in USA.  When he came on leave an agent of the opposite party named Navya Jiju approached the complainant and persuaded him to take an insurance policy of the opposite parties.  He told him that it is an one time premium of Rs.5,00,000/- and it was a mutual fund insurance scheme.  After the receipt of the premium the opposite parties issued insurance policy which was for life stage pension scheme.  When he approached the 3^rd opposite party to get refund of the amount they gave only Rs.1,50,607/-.  Complaint is filed for the balance amount and for compensation.

3.      The first opposite party is Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, Mumbai.  Second opposite party is the Chief Manager of the Company at Mumbai.  Third opposite party is its Branch Manager at Kottayam,  They in their version contended that it was fully understanding the policy complainant joined in the scheme and that as per clause 4 of the policy conditions if the premium is not paid after one year 20% of the amount of premium is appropriated as surrender value.  After appropriating the surrender value Rs.1,50,607.24 was paid to the complainant on March 15, 2012.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      On the side of the complainant Exts.A1 to A5 were marked.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to refund the complainant Rs.4,94,000/- on the ground that the regulations of insurance regulatory and development authority provides a deduction of Rs.6000/- only in the case of surrender of the policy.  Opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The main argument advanced by the appellants is that as the policy is a unit linked policy; Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.  There is force in the above contention. National Commission in Ramlal Agarwala Vs. Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC) has found that policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share market, which is for speculative gain complaint does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision we hold that complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the Act.  That being so the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In the result appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum allowing the complaint is set aside.  Complaint is dismissed as found not maintainable.  Complainant can approach other appropriate Fora like permanent Lok  Adalath to redress his grievance.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.