Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/850/2014

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar

23 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/ 850 /2014
Date  of  Institution	:	23 /12 /2014
Date   of   Decision	:	23/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Jatinder Singh son of S. Jasbir Singh, aged 28 years, resident of house No. 1218, First Floor, Phase 5, Mohali, District Mohali, Punjab (presently residing at H. No. J1/142, 3^rd floor, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi)

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

1.   Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance  Ltd. through its Chief Operating Officer, registered office at Ninth Floor Godrej Coliseum, behind Everard Nagar, Soin (East) Mumbai 400022, India.

 

2^nd Address:-

     Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance  Ltd. through its Chief Operating Officer, registered office at 27 BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051.

 

2.   Kotak  Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. SCO No. 141-42, Second floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its authorized representative.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA                MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate.
For OPs	:	Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the  complainant who is a central Govt. employee on the allurement of Opposite Parties purchased Insurance Policy No.01984651 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- under the product namely Kotak Super Advantage (UIL-017L058V01) commencing w.e.f. 7.5.2010 and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid towards first premium by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- annually. It was stated that the term of the policy was for 20 years. It was further stated that at the time of taking policy it was assured that locking period of the policy was three years and interest would be paid on the money deposited. It was further stated that the payment of the policy was stopped by the complainant in the year 2012-13 when he came to know that the said policy was not the one, which was assured to the complainant by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that on objection by the complainant, the Opposite Parties terminated  the policy vide Annexure C-3 dated 8.5.2014 by sending a cheque of Rs.20,180.70 instead of refunding the entire amount with interest as assured by them. It was further stated that the Opposite parties without giving any plausible calculation refunded only Rs.20,180.70/- and did not refund the remaining amount despite repeated request. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed seeking various reliefs.

2.Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case.

3.The Opposite Parties in their joint reply stated that after receipt of duly filled proposal form (Annexure R-1) and requisite documents, the Opposite Parties issued the policy, in question to the complainant, which was a market linked insurance policy with incidental life covers and as such the complainant is not a consumer as he purchased the policy for earning profit from market. It was further sated that  the complaint is barred by time as the policy, in question was issued in the year 2010 and the complainant approached to this Forum after lapse of 4 years. It was further stated that the complainant also submitted a duly filled signed benefit illustration under which he had agreed to the benefits, charges, terms and conditions and risk factors of the proposal plan.   It was further stated that the Opposite Parties forwarded the policy documents alongwith proposal form and a welcome letter, wherein it was clearly mentioned that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the features of the terms and conditions of the policy he/she can review/withdraw/return/alter details of the policy within 15 days i.e. under the ‘free look period’. But no request for cancellation within the free look period was received by the Opposite Parties from the complainant. It was further stated that admittedly the complainant received the policy documents, which are attached with the complaint but he never raised any dissatisfaction regarding the policy. Even the complainant being agreed with terms and conditions of the policy paid two premiums.  It was further stated that the complainant did not pay the next renewal premium despite reminder dated 12.4.2012 due on 7.5.2012 and such the policy entered into the lapse mode.  It was further stated that the complainant failed to pay the renewal premium payment on due dates and, as such could not keep the policy, in  question, alive by reviving the policy. Hence, due to his own negligence and fault the policy stood foreclosed as per terms and conditions.  It was further stated that the foreclosure refund was paid o the complainant after due calculation in accordance with policy terms and conditions. It was further stated that even otherwise the complainant was entitled to avail only those benefits which were mentioned in the policy contract, it was nowhere mentioned in the policy contract that in case the policy is lapsed the entire amount would be refunded. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong

4.     The complainants has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

7.     The complainant has argued that when he received the policy in question on 7.5.2010, he was assured that locking period of the policy was 3 years and interest would be paid on the money deposited.  He has further argued that he paid two installments and stopped paying premium when he came to know that the said policy was not the one, which was assured to him by the Opposite Parties. The allegation of the complainant is that OPs terminated the policy vide Annexure C-3 dated 8.5.2014 by sending a cheque of Rs.20,180.70 Paisa instead of refunding the entire amount alongwith interest as assured by them (OPs).

 

8.        On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant had purchased a unit linked policy whereby the investment was made through share market/speculative transactions and main motive for investment was for profit and gains and has vehemently argued that the complaint in respect of the claim under unit linked insurance policy is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act; the money having been invested in speculative business. The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that as per clause No.3 of the proposal form, the complainant had voluntarily opted for the policy term of 20 years and the frequency of premium amount to be yearly.  He has further argued that the OPs never received any request for free look cancellation or any grievance relating to the said policy within the mandate period.  He has further argued that the complainant after making the payment of two annual premiums did not make the payment of next renewal premium despite reminder dated 12.4.2012, which was due on 7.5.2012 due to which the policy entered into the lapse auto termination. 

9.        We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.  The copy of the Kotak proposal form (Annexure R-1) itself shows that the complainant affixed his signature on the same and had ticked on “unit linked”.  The complainant has nowhere denied that the said insurance policy is not a unit linked policy whereby the investment is made through share market/speculative transactions. Pertinently, all unit linked policies are different from traditional insurance policies and are subject to different risk factors. In the said policy, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. A perusal of judgment Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 decided on 23.4.2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission shows that in that case the dispute was regarding unit linked insurance policy and the claim under that policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making following observations :-

“The investment made by the petitioner/ complainant was to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties. The State Commission, Odisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have 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 State Commission dismissed the appeal.”

Importantly, against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission which was dismissed. Dis-satisfied with that order, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble National Commission did not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission warranting interference. The matter relating to unit linked policies was also agitated in Smt. Parmajit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, consumer complaint No.96/2011 decided on 4.7.2014 and Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs. Gurjit Singh, First Appeal No.40/2011 decided on 22.9.2014 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab and it was held that the complaint in respect of the claim under unit linked insurance policy is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. 

10.       In view of the law laid down in the above cited rulings, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  As the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint.

11.      For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Needless to say, complainant shall be at liberty to avail the other remedies available to him before any other appropriate Court/Forum. 
12.       The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

Announced

23^rd   September, 2015                                          Sd/-

 (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

                                             

                                                Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER