BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.57 of 2015

Date of Instt. 20.02.2015

Date of Decision :10.08.2015

Jasvir Singh son of Sukhdeep Singh R/o Village Nagar Tehsil Phillaur District SBS Nagar presently residing at Pirea Greece, through attorney Paramjit Kaur aged about 35 years wife of Jasvir Singh son of Sukhdeep Singh R/o Village Nagar Tehsil Phillaur District SBS Nagar

..........Complainant Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), Branch Old GT Road, Near Bus Stand Phillaur District Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Sections 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.SK Rayat Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.MS Sachdeva Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under sections 12 and 14 of of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a NRI therefore is filing the present complaint through his attorney who is his wife Paramjit Kaur and is well conversant with the facts of the present case. The complainant is residing at Greece for the last many years. In the month of January 2008 the employees of the opposite party have came to the complainant and orally asked the complainant and his wife that their company issues policies to their customer which carries more interest than the regular FD interest given by the banks. The employees of the opposite party has disclosed the complainant the terms of the policies and stated the complainant that as per the terms of the policy the complainant has to pay Rs.1,50,000/- in three years in three equal installments of Rs.50,000/- each for consecutive three years. Then after five years from the starting date of policy the amount so paid would be doubled. The company will then pay back the half of the amount after completion of five years from the starting date of the policy and the employee of the opposite party assured that the remaining payment would be made after the completion of sixth year of the policy. In this way the complainant acting upon the assurance of the opposite party got issued such policy for him in the year 2008. The complainant has paid three equal installments till 2010 amounting Rs.50,000/- each. Same way the one policy was issued in the name of complainant's wife and premium for that policy was also paid same away. The company/opposite party then returned back approximately half the amount in the years 2013 and assured for the remaining amount would be paid to complainant in the year 2014. In this way the complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- in total for the policy taken by him. The employees of the opposite party have never issued any kind of detailed policy document to the complainant but has only given receipts of the premium amount on which the policy number is mentioned as 132619640. The opposite party has not returned the remaining amount as per assurance given to the complainant for policy in the month of March 2013. The employees of the opposite party asked the wife of the complainant that the remaining amount of the policy would be paid to the complainant in the month of March 2014 as per the terms of policy and as per promise. The complainant through his wife then in the month of March 2014 has approached the opposite party and requested them to pay the remaining amount to her as per the terms of policy but they started lingering on the matter on the one or the other false pretext. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay balance amount of Rs.1,28,000/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the complainant Jasvir Singh had taken a policy bearing No.132619640 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- under TT-188-10-5. The mode of payment was yearly and the premium was Rs.50,000/- per year with the date of commencement as 14.1.2008. The FUP was 01/2011. The terms and conditions were duly signed by the complainant after admitting the contents thereof to be correct. The policy holder had paid three yearly installments of the premium of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter discontinued the payment of premium. As per the terms and conditions No.1, where the premium has been paid for atleast three years and more and further premiums have been discontinued, then policy shall be compulsorily surrendered in the following cases:-

a). The balance in the policy holder's fund, at all times, shall be subject to a minimum balance of Rs.5000/-. In case, the policy holder's fund value falls below this limit, the policy shall compulsorily be terminated and the balance amount in the policy holder's fund will be refunded to the policy holder.

b). In case, the policy is not revived during the period of revival, then the policy shall be terminated on the expiry of revival period or on maturity, whichever is earlier and the balance amount in the policy holder's fund will be refunded to the policy holder.

3. Under this policy, the policy holder had paid the premium @ Rs.50,000/- per annum for three years only. He had not got revived the policy within revival period i.e within two years from the date of first unpaid amount i.e 14.1.2011 to 13.1.2013. His policy had terminated on 14.1.2013. At the time of termination i.e on 14.1.2013,the policy holder had 14043.503 units in his fund and NAV rate as on date 14.1.2013 is Rs.12.3188. An amount of Rs.1,72,999/- (No of Units 14043.503 X NAV Rs.12.3188) was paid on 16.4.2013 to the policy holder through NEFT banking transfer. Even otherwise, as per clause 21 of the policy, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP11 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Without going into the merits of the case, the present complaint is liable to be disposed off on the short ground that policy in question was unit linked and as such the complainant can not be termed as consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Ex.OP3 is policy. Clause 21 of the policy provide as under:-

"The value of the units as well as the benefits relating to the policy holder's unit account are subject to market and other risks and there can be no assurance that the objectives of any of the above funds will be achieved. Further, the value of the units within each fund can go up or down depending on the different factors affecting the capital markets and may also be affected by charges in the general level of interest rate and other economic factors. All benefits under the policy are also subject to the Tax Laws and other financial enactments as they become applicable from time to time".

8. Ex.OP5 is proposal form. In the title of the proposal form, it is mentioned that Proposal For LIC's Fortune Plus/LIC's Profit Plus Plan. It is further mentioned in the title that in this policy the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. It is further mentioned in the title that LIC's Fortune Plus/LIC's profit plus is a ULIP plan which is different from the traditional policy in the sense that it is subject to market risk. So clearly the policy in question is unit linked. The funds under the policy are invested in equity market which is speculative in nature. This Forum is not to enforce a speculative transactions. This policy was taken with a view of earn gain or profit. In Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2011, decided on 4.7.2014 by our own Hon'ble State Commission, it has been held as under:-

"At the outset, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the policy in question was admittedly a Unit Linked Policy and, as such, the claim made thereunder is not cognizable by the Foras under the Act. In support of his submission he cited III(2013) CPJ 203 (NC) (Ram Lal Aggaarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr). Learned counsel for the complainant could not refute this submission so raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party.

In above said judgment the dispute was regarding Unit Linked Insurance Policy and the claim made under that policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making the 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 Vs. 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".

On the basis of the findings so recorded by the District Forum it came to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable under the Act and was dismissed. Against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which did not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the District Forum and accordingly rejected the appeal memo at the admission stage. Dissatisfied with that order the petitioner filed a revision before the Hon'ble National Commission. It was held that there was no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting inference and the revision was dismissed. It becomes very much clear from this judgment that complaint in respect of the claim under Unit Linked Insurance Policy is not maintainable under the Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. It appears that on account of that reason itself the learned counsel for the complainant has not refuted the submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party".

9. To the same effect is the law laid down by our Hon'ble State Commission in Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs Gurjit Singh, First Appeal No.407 of 2011, decided on 22.9.2014.

10. The ratio of above authorities is applicable on the facts of the present case. So the complainant, having taken the unit linked policy, can not be termed as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

11. Consequently, the present complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach civil court or any other appropriate Forum. There shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

10.08.2015 Member Member President