Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/479

MANAGER. TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

KIRAN GEORGE - Opp.Party(s)

SAJI ISSAC

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOS.292/14, 350/14 &  479/14

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 31.07.2015

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

APPEAL NOS.292/14

The Manager,

TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Thodupuzha Branch, Thodupuzha.P.O,                     : APPELLANTS

Idukki District.

 

The Manager,

TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Regional Office, Ernakulam.

 

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

 

            Vs.

 

Renjith Jacob,

No.215, Nelluvelil No.2,

Vazhakkulam.P.O, Manjalloor,                                        : RESPONDENT

Ernakulam District.

 

APPEAL NOS.350/14

Renjith Kumar.P,

Branch Manager,

TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd.,                             : APPELLANT

2^nd floor, Dawn Town Shopping Mall,

Nr. Koyil Hospital, Talap, Kannur.

 

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

 

            Vs.

 

Dhanendran.M.V,

Mothiravali House (Kelu Nivas),

Theroth Madappura Road,                                              : RESPONDENT

P.O.Kakkad, Kannur – 5.

 

APPEAL NOS.479/14

The Manager,

TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Thodupuzha Branch, Thodupuzha.P.O,                     : APPELLANTS

Idukki District.

 

The Manager,

TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Bangalore-560 001.

 

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

 

            Vs.

 

Kiran George,

Kochuparambil House,

Amayapra P.O, Thodupuzha,                                          : RESPONDENT

Idukki District.

 

COMMON JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

In all the 3 appeals common questions are involved. Therefore these 3 appeals are disposed of by a common order.  Appeal.292/14 is filed against the order of CDRF, Idukki in CC.265/13 dated, December 30, 2013, and Appeal.350/14 is filed against the order of CDRF, Kannur in CC.188/12 dated December 19, 2013 and Appeal.479/14 is filed against the order of CDRF, Idukki in CC.334/13 dated March 28, 2014.

2.      In all the 3 appeals the appellant is the same ie Tata AIG 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 complainant in A.292/14 & A.350/14 is that they have joined in the insurance policy issued by the opposite party and paid a premium, that they have made to believe that after 3 years of payment of premium at any time he can close the policy that they 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 case of the complainant in A.479/14, is that he has joined in the insurance policy issued by the opposite party and paid a premium, that he was made to believe that after 5 years of payment of premium at any time he can close the policy and that he will get bonus also and that after 5 years the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint for return of the premium amount and claiming compensation.

5.      The opposite parties in all these complaints contended that the policy was unit linked for a term of 20 years that due to market fluctuations, value of the fund depreciated and that the complainants entitled to only the surrender value of the policy.

6.      In CC.265/13, Ext.P1(series), P2 and R1 (series) were marked. In CC.188/12 Exts.A1 to A13 and Ext.B1 were marked.  In CC.334/13 Ext.P1 & P2(series) and Ext.R1 were marked 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.

7.      Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondents/complainants.

8.      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.  That being so the 3 appeals have to be allowed and the complaints have to be dismissed.

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

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.