DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 391 of 16.9.2016

                                      Decided on: 9.11.2016

Ranju Bala wife of Sh.Suresh Jindal R/o H.No.2261, Urban Estate, Phase-2, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., 7^th Floor, Kotak Towers, Bldg.No.21, Infinity Park,Gen.A.K.Vaidya Marg, Malad€ Mumbai.
2. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., SCO No.11, 2^nd Floor, Chhoti Barandari, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Smt.Mandeep Kaur,Advocate, counsel for the

                                         complainant.                        

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                 Ms.Ranju Bala has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To refund Rs.99,000/-,the premium amount paid by her
2.  To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss and harassment
3. Any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that her husband namely Sh.Suresh Jindal, started working as agent of the O.Ps. They asked him to first get his family members insured. Accordingly, she handed over the documents and a cheque dated 21.9.2015 for a sum of Rs.99,000/- for issuance of insurance policy having  one time premium . At the time of insurance, some blank forms were also got signed from her. After some time, it came to her knowledge that the policy issued to her is different one. Since she was unable to deposit the yearly premium amount Rs.99,000/-,as such, she requested the O.Ps. either to issue her an insurance  policy  having one time premium or to refund her the amount, of the deposited premium. The O.Ps. did not paid any heed to her request. The said act of O.Ps. caused her financial loss as well as  harassment to her. As such the O.Ps. have committed  deficiency in service and have also indulged in  unfair trade practice .Hence this complaint.

3.                We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

4.                The version of the complainant is that on 21.9.2015, she paid a sum of Rs.99,000/- for the purchase of insurance policy having one time premium. For the said purpose the O.Ps. got her signatures on some blank papers/forms . However, the Ops issued her a different policy for which she was to pay premium of Rs.99,000/- yearly for  five years. To show that infact the complainant has opted for an insurance policy having one time premium, no document has been placed on record by her in support of this version. Thus, in the absence of any document, the version of the complainant cannot be taken as a gospel truth. From the perusal of copy of first premium receipt dated 28.9.2015, copy of schedule of the policy, and Agreement & Schedule, placed on record, it is apparent that she has purchased an insurance policy i.e. Kotak Investment Plan ,which is a  Unit Linked Endowment Assurance Plan. It may be stated that the dispute involved in the present complaint is pertaining to Unit Linked Insurance Policy. The law has already been laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vol.III(2013)CPJ 203 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission  has held that the policy having been taken for investment of premium in the share market, which is speculative transaction and the complainant does not come within the purview of consumer as per the Act. By making reference of the order passed in Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (supra), our own Hon’ble State Commission, in Consumer Complaint  No. 96 of 2011 titled as  Smt. Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. Decided on 4.7.2014,   has  held that the complaint  in respect of  the claim under Unit Linked Insurance Police, is not maintainable under the Act.

5.                In view of the law laid down by the Superior Commissions, in the cases referred above, the present complaint is dismissed in limine being not maintainable before this Forum. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

                                      Neelam Gupta                        Neena Sandhu

                                           Member                                  President