Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he has taken the insurance policy bearing No.00668745 under plan name Head Start Future Protect Single Life Regular Term and was paying Rs.1500/- per month by ECS directly from his Current A/c No.9441 maintained with the Saraswat Co-operative Bank, Girgaon Branch. In the month of September-2010, the complainant enquired with Shri Deepak Rajpurkar, Agent of the O.P. about the status of policy and came to know that outstanding amount was drastically minimal. The complainant was requested to continue monthly premium for atleast one more year which will be beneficial to complainant. Accordingly, the complainant continued to pay monthly premium for one more year till October-2011 to the tune of Rs.78,000/- At that time, policy was worth only Rs.59,908.83/-. The complainant was disappointed and met Shri Shetty who tried to convince the complainant to continue the policy for two more years. The complainant requested to return the full amount paid by him. The policy was unilaterally terminated and the amount of Rs.59,908.83/- was credited on 19th October, 2011 to the Saving Bank A/c No.101797. The O.P. gave the reason that the stock market was down where the amount was invested. This statement was not proper as the stock market almost reached its historic high of 21108.64 on 5th November, 2010. The approach of the O.P. is malafide. The complainant suffered monetary loss and hardship due to fault of the O.P. Therefore, he has filed this complaint to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.50,000/- being the loss suffered by the complainant. He has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.18,091.17/- and Rs.78,000/- w.e.f. 19th October, 2011. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and hardship suffered by him and cost of the proceeding.
2) The O.P. appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation. The cause of action arose in June-2007. The complaint is filed in the year-2012 therefore it is barred by limitation. Insurance policy was issued as per proposal form executed and signed by the complainant. It was accepted by the complainant. The complainant was given an option of free look period of fifteen days. The complainant did not avail free look period. He paid premium from 11th June, 2007 to 14th September, 2011 on monthly basis. He surrendered the policy on 10th October, 2011. Therefore, the surrender amount of Rs.59,908.03/- was paid to the complainant being the surrender value. The refund of excess premium of Rs.1,500/- was paid. It is submitted that this insurance policy can not be compared with any normal market investment as it is unit linked assurance plan. Under this plan, complainant’s premiums were invested to yield returns and also the insurer undertakes the risk of death of life assured. The quantification of benefits to the tune of Rs.59,908.83/- are based on the fund value which depends on the investments made in equity market. The complainant can not blame the O.P. for depreciation in their investment. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.
3) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record following points arise for our consideration
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
2) | Whether the claim is barred by limitation ? | No |
3) | What Order? | As per final order |
REASONS
4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that the complainant had taken the insurance policy bearing No.00668745 under plan Head Start Future Protect Single Life Regular Term and was paying Rs.1,500/- per month by ECS. The opponent has produced the copy of insurance policy along with the terms and conditions. It is unit linked assurance plan. The complainant has elected to allocate the fund to dynamic growth fund and accordingly the amount was invested in this fund. According to the opponent, the policy was surrendered on 10th October, 2011. On that day, surrender amount of the policy was Rs.59,908.03/-. The same was paid to the complainant. According to the complainant at least the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.78,000/- should be returned to him. The complainant has taken unit linked assurance plan which is subject to market position. In this plan, there is risk of investment. The complainant has taken the risk of investment. The complainant opted for dynamic growth fund and accordingly the amount was invested. Therefore, the complainant can not say that the amount invested by him should be return to him. The complainant has taken the risk of investment. Therefore, he can not blame the opponent and claim back the amount. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount and the loss suffered by him. The complainant has also prayed for compensation towards mental agony. As stated above, the complainant has taken the risk of market position. He has surrendered the policy. Value of the policy on the day of surrender was paid to the complainant. As stated above, the complainant is not entitled for the loss suffered by him therefore he is not entitled for the compensation as prayed.
5) According to the opponent, claim is barred by limitation. The policy was issued in the year-2007 and the complaint is filed in the year-2012. The complaint is filed after receiving the refund amount on 10th October, 2011 on the ground of loss suffered by him. It is filed within two years from the date of refund of the amount. The complaint is not against the issuing policy but it is against the loss suffered by him. Therefore, it is well within limitation.
6) Thus, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint stands dismissed.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced dated 4th February, 2014
