Complainant Tarlok Singh has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short Act) has prayed for the issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties being the various offices of Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, to return the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by him with the opposite parties alongwith interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of due till its actual realization. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him, from the hands of opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is that he is agriculturist by profession and is illiterate and only knows the signing in English Language. He has sold his land in the year 2008 and holding a Saving Bank account bearing No.1362 with the opposite party no.3 and he in order to deposit the sale consideration of the sold land amounting to Rs.3 Lacs visited the Bank premises. He met with the then Branch Manager who allured him that if he will deposit Rs.3 lacs with the opposite party no.2, then he will get double amount after completion of 5 years and opposite party Bank tie up with the opposite parties no.1 and 2. He deposited Rs.3,00,000/- with the opposite party no.1 and 2 through opposite party no.3 and opposite parties no.1 & 2  obtained signatures on blank papers without disclosing any terms and conditions of the policy and asked him that it is for the mere security purposes and paper work. Thereafter, he started approaching the opposite party no.2 for getting the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as assured by all the opposite parties, but they were procrastinating the matter with one pretext or the other. He is continuously approaching the opposite parties on number of occasions, but all the times the opposite parties put away the matter pending with one pretext or the other qua that so far his case has not been settled by the opposite party no.1. But ultimately in the month of June 2014, the opposite party no.2 flatly refused to accede his legal and genuine request. The opposite party no.1 has openly proclaimed that the policy was of 20 years duration and he was to deposit 20 installments each after every year and they further told that if he wants to get back his money then they will pay only Rs.30,000/- to him. Infact he never gave consent to start policy for 20 years. Under protest and dire need of money, he has withdrawn the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the opposite parties on dated 14.6.2014. The act of the opposite parties to change the policy by issuing policy of 20 years is illegal, null and void, against the rules and regulations. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer under the Act; this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant himself has failed to pay the renewal premium on the due date under the subject policy to keep the same alive and due to his own omission, commission, negligence and fault allowed the policy. The policy was lapsed initially and later on policy was foreclosed as per the clause 4 of the policy contract and foreclosure amount of Rs.30,000/- was processed in his account ICICI Bank Limited in the account no.050101507555 on 13.6.2014 through NEFT which is well admitted in the present complaint. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Certain preliminary objections have also raised. Many judgments have also quoted been in the preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant had submitted a duly filled up and signed proposal form. On the basis of information and declarations provided in the said Application Form, the premium and as per the underwriting rules/guidelines of the company the proposal was accepted by the complainant at standard rates and policy was issued. The policy documents were dispatched through speed post which was admittedly received at the address of the complainant. Complainant was also provided with the option to cancel insurance in question during the 15 days free look period in case he is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days. It has been further submitted that he has paid only the first premium under the policy and thereafter did not pay any premium under the policy, further he was also sent the lapsation notice and the Major Revival Intimation/Form but he failed to pay the premium or to revive his policy. Since only one premium was paid by the complainant at the time of subscribing of said policy and subsequent premium were unpaid. Thus, the policy was lapsed initially and later on policy was foreclosed as per the clause 4 of the policy contract and an amount of Rs.30,000/- was processed in his account ICICI BANK LIMITED. present complaint. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.      

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its reply taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite party for filing the present complaint and complainant has filed the present false complaint by concocting a false story and dragged the opposite party in false litigation, as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merits, it was denied that the complainant met with the then Branch Manager who allured the complainant that if the complainant will deposit Rs.3 lacs with the opposite party no.2 then the complainant will get double amount after completion of 5 years. It was further denied that he further allured the complainant that there is tie up of the bank with the opposite party no.1 and 2.  It was denied that that complainant came into the talks of the opposite party no.3 and got deposited the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with the opposite party no.1 and 2 through opposite party no.3. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.     Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex C-1, along with the other documents Ex C2 to Ex C4 and closed the evidence.

6.    Sh.Ashish Gupta, Managar of the opposite parties No.1 to 2 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.P8 and closed the evidence.

7.        Sh.Jagir Singh, Branch Manager of opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-3/1 and closed the evidence.

8.    We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.        At the outset, it was submitted by the counsel for the opposite party that the policy in question was admittedly a Unit Linked Policy and as such the claim made is not maintainable before the Foras under the Act. In support of his submissions he cited a judgment of Hon’ble National Commission ‘2013 (3) CPJ 203 N.C. (Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs. Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Company)’. It is very clear from the judgment cited above that the complaint in respect of the claim under ULIP (Unit Linked Insurance Policy) is not maintainable under the Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. We also find that the present disputed insurance policy is also a ULIP Policy as is clear from the document Ex.OP8. The learned counsel for the complainant could not refute this submission so raised by the learned council for the opposite party.

10.      In view of our above discussion, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before the Fora under the Act, without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to seek his remedy before the appropriate Forum/Court.   

11.      Copies of the orders be communicated to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

                  (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President     

ANNOUNCED:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

July, 06 2015.                                                                Member.

*MK*