Haryana

StateCommission

A/182/2016

RAM LOKE DHANJAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.ADHLAKHA

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.182 of 2016

Date of Institution:14.01.2016 and 29.02.2016

Date of Decision:01.04.2016

 

Ram Loke Dhanjal S/o Shri Dharam Chand Dhanjal resident of House No.2200, Siri Nagar Colony, Jagadhri,District Yamuna Nagar.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

1.       Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. Kotal Infinity, 7^th Floor, Zone-4, Bldg. No.21, Infinity Park, Opposite Western Express Highway, Gen A.K.Vaidya, Malad (E) Mumbai-400097, India through its authorized signatory, Managing Director.

2.       Secure Line Insurance Services Ltd, near Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab) through its Insurance Advisor.

3.       Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. through its Branch Manager SCO No.133-134, 2^nd Floor, Sector-17, near Mini Secretariat, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.D.S.Adlakha, Advocate for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. Ram Loke  Dhanjal, complainant is in appeal against the Order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Yamuna Nagar, whereby his complaint against Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. and Anr. from claiming refund of the two insurance policies has been dismissed by granting him liberty to approach appropriate Court of Forum.
2. In brief, the complainant had obtained two insurance policies from the OPs bearing No.02014109 & 02491933 by paying Rs.20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. He paid the premium for the first three years in 6 half yearly mode totaling of Rs.60,000/-. However, when the complainant apprehended some fraud and cheating by the OPs, he approached the OPs to cancel both of the policies and to refund the amount, in question along with upto date interest.  Waiting some time in vain when the complainant did not receive any response from the OPs, he approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on their part claiming to close down the two insurance policies and to refund the amount of the aforesaid policies alongwith damages for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses etc.
3. OPs 1 & 3 contested the complaint by pleading that in the first instance that the complainant had not obtained the insurance policies through any agent / employee of the OPs 1 & 3, but from some independent insurance broker namely M/s Secure Line Insurance Services Ltd., Mohali (Punjab). Even then, upon receipt of the policy documents, the complainant had the option to return the policy under the provision of “free look” as per the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Regulations, 2002 within 15 days from the receipt of the policy. But the complainant did not opt for the same. Therefore, according to OPs, there being no fraud, cheating or deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Accepting the pleas of the OPs the learned District Forum vide order dated 07.12.2015 dismissed the complaint and approach the appropriate Court / Forum for establishing his allegations regarding fraud and cheating etc.  
4. Against this Order, the complainant has come up in appeal before us reiterating his contentions, already raised before the District Forum. The complainant has pressed for the refund of the amount of the aforesaid policies alongwith damages for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses etc. contending that instead of relegating him to the Civil Court his grievances should have been redressed by the Fora itself.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is evident that the complainant had of his own accord gone for purchasing the Unit Link Insurance Policies. It is a settled and well accepted position that Unit Link Insurance Policies are not subject matter of the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As per Section 2 (i) (d) of the Act if any service is availed for  commercial purpose then a person cannot be considered as consumer. As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 23^rd April 2013, ‘unit based insurance policy’ is commercial transaction and one cannot be considered as consumer.   When it was ‘Unit linked’ policy he cannot be considered as a consumer as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwala’s case (Supra). When the complainant is not a consumer the complaint is not maintainable before District Forum.

6.      Hence, a person feeling aggrieved against any fraud or cheating played upon him in the purchasing of the Unit Link Insurance Policy will have to resort to his remedy before the Civil Court by leading oral as well documentary evidence. It is only after appreciating the evidence that the Civil Court will adjudicate about the truth or falsehood of the allegations. Therefore, we agree with the conclusion of the learned District Forum regarding the dismissal of the complaint and leaving the complainant to approach the Civil Court for seeking his remedy, if so advised.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

 

April 01st, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.