THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 247-14
Date of Institution : 6.5.2014
Date of Decision : 11.2.2015
S. Jaspal Singh son of S. Swaran Singh resident of H.No. M4/589, Peer Shah Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited, having its registered office/Central Processing Centre ; At Godrej Coliseum, 8th Floor, Behind Everard Nagar, Sion Trombay Road, Sion East, Mumbai 400022
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited , 2nd Floor, SCO No. 35, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Adv
For the opposite parties : Sh. S.M.Vermani,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Jaspal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that in the month of December 2009 he was approached by Sujata Kapoor, an agent of the opposite party, who was the real sister of Sonia who was residing to the next door of neighbour of the complainant . Said Sujata Kapoor, agent of the opposite party told the complainant that
-2-
complainant has to deposit only one installment of the amount for a continuous period of four years and thereafter the amount can be withdrawn from the company. As such on the said assurance complainant deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- in December 2009. Said Sujata Kapoor also obtained the signatures of the complainant on one blank form. According to the complainant after expiry of four years, complainant tried to contact Sujata Kapoor through her sister namely Sonia, but she did not give any satisfactory reply. Complainant got two insurance policies bearing No. 01829729 and 01891866. Thereafter complainant came to know that the policies stood cancelled on account of non payment of further premium. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount invested by the complainant alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant had duly filled up and signed proposal for insurance and on the basis of proposal forms policies bearing No., 1829729 and 1891866 were issued to the complainant. The term of both the policies is 10 years, premium amount Rs. 50000/- and Rs. 49000/- respectively, premium frequency was 10 years each, sum assured was Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 2,45,000/-. The complainant paid only one premium in both the policies. It was submitted that both the policies alongwith terms and conditions were sent to the complainant. The complainant retained the policy documents and did not approach the company regarding any discrepancies. The complainant had also signed a benefit illustration after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy from which it is clear that the complainant very well knew about all the terms and conditions of the policy. It was submitted that in accordance to clause 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002 that in case the policy holder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he can withdraw/return the
-3-
policy within 15 days under the free look period. But the complainant did not approach the opposite party within the free look period and retained the policy documents . Thereafter the complainant was also issued notices for renewal of the policies, but he did not pay any heed to the same. As such the policies lapsed . However, for the policy No. 1829729 an amount of Rs. 5000/- was processed for refund via cheque bearing No. 453008 dated 3.1.2013 and the same were despatched at the address of the complainant but till date same is not encashed by the complainant. For the policy No. 1891866 an amount of Rs. 6096.35 paise was processed for refund and cheque bearing No. 477037 dated 5.3.2013 was sent to the complainant which was received by the complainant but the same was also not encashed by the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, postal receipts Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, letter dated 21.1.2014 Ex.C-5, Account statement Ex.C-6.
4. On the other hand opposite parties tenderd affidavit of Sh. Shakil Anand ,Sr.Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/13.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got two insurance policies bearing No.1829729 and 1891866 from the opposite party on payment of premium of Rs. 50000/- and Rs. 49000/- respectively. The complainant alleges that one Sujata Kapoor agent of the opposite party told the complainant that the complainant has to pay only one installment and after four years, the amount can be
-4-
withdrawn from the company. After expiry of four years, the complainant tried to contact Sujata Kapoor through her sister namely Sonia, but Sujata Kapoor could not be contacted. So the complainant approached opposite party No.2 to verify about the fate of his investment but they also did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. However, later on complainant came to know that the amount of the complainant was invested into aforesaid two insurance policies which stood lapsed due to non payment of further premiums. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the policies in question Ex.OP1,2/4 and Ex.OP1,2/9 were issued to the complainant in December 2009 and February 2010 on the basis of the proposal/application forms submitted by the complainant Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP7. The policies obtained by the complainant are unit linked policies and the complainant himself has requested for the investment of his premium amount in the form of shares in the open market to earn profits i.e for speculative gain. It has been clearly mentioned in the policies that the policies are for 10 years, the premium payment term is 10 years and the frequency of payment of premium is yearly. The policies were issued to the complainant in the year 2009 and 2010 respectively. The complainant did not pay the next premiums which was due payable in December 2010 and February 2011 respectively. The complainant was issued notices for payment of next premiums due which are Ex.OP1,2/5 and Ex.OP1,2/10 respectively which are dated 20.11.2010 and 29.1.2011 respectively. But inspite of that the complainant did not pay the next premiums. Thereafter the complainant was served with notices regarding fore-closure of the policies Ex.OP1,2/6 dated 3.1.2013 and Ex.OP1,2/11 dated 30.10.2012. As such the said policies stood lapsed due to non payment of premiums. Thereafter the complainant did not make any effort to get the policies renewed nor paid any further premium
-5-
and he approached this Forum and filed the present complaint on 6.5.2014 i.e after a lapse of a period of 5 years. As such the complaint is barred by limitation. The opposite party against policy No. 1829729 processed the refund of Rs. 5000/- and sent the same to the complainant vide cheque bearing No. 453008 dated 3.1.2013 and sent to the complainant on 7.1.2013 through courier. Simlarly under policy No. 1891866 , an amount of Rs. 6096.35 paise was processed for refund and the cheque bearing No. 477037 dated 5.3.2013 was despatched to the complainant on 7.3.2013. But the complainant did not get the aforesaid cheques encashed. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant obtained policies bearing No.1829729 and 1891866 from the opposite party after filling in and signing the proposal forms exbt.OP1,2/2 and Ex.OP1,2/7. On the basis of these proposal forms , opposite party issued aforesaid policies to the complainant in the year December 2009 and February 2010 respectively. The policies were having annual premium of Rs. 50000/- and Rs. 49000/- respectively, the policy term was 10 years, premium payment term was also 10 years and the frequency of payment of premium was yearly. But the complainant did not pay the second premium and the opposite party issued notices to the complainant Ex. Ex.OP1,2/5 and Ex.OP1,2/10 reminding the complainant to pay the next premiums which were due in December 2010 and February 2011. But the complainant did not pay the second premium. Thereafter the opposite party issued fore-closure notices to the complainant Ex.OP1,2/6 dated 3.1.2013 and Ex.OP1,2/11 dated 30.10.2012. But inspite of that the complainant neither paid the second premium nor tried to get the policies renewed . As such the policies lapsed in January 2011 and March 2011 resperctively after lapse of a period of one month grace period. Thereafter the complainant never approached the opposite party. However, he filed the present
-6-
complaint in this Forum on 6.5.2014 i.e after a lapse of a period of more than 3 years. As such the complaint is time barred and the complainant did not file any application for condonation of delay.
9. Apart from this both the policies are unit linked policies as is evident from proposal Forms Ex.OP1,2/2 and Ex.OP1,2/7 as well as the policies Ex.OP1,2/4 and Ex.OP1,2/9 in which the description of the plan has been categorically mentioned as unit linked endowment insurance plan and the complainant himself has opted for investment of his entire amount of premium in open market in the form of shares just to earn profit for speculative gain, hence for commercial purpose . As such, the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd and another in Revision Petition No. 658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and Others decided on 23.04.2013 that where the investment made by the petitioner/complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policies to gain profit, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/complainant is not a 'consumer' of the opposite party. Hon'ble State Commission, Orisha in First Appeal No. 162 of 2010 in case Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited has held that the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the Hon'ble State Commission, dismissed the appeal.
10. Complainant alleges that one Sujata Kapoor agent of the opposite party, who is none else but real sister of next door neighbour of the complainant namely Sonia, had assured the complainant that the complainant had to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for four years and the complainant shall be entitled to withdraw this
-7-
amount after four years. The complainant has neither made said Sujata Kapoor or her sister Sonia as party in the present proceedings nor filed any affidavit of said Sujata Kapoor nor produced any cogent evidence as to the assurance given by said Sujata Kapoor , to the complainant.
11. Consequently as the complaint is barred by limitation . Hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
11.02.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member
