By  Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President

          The case of the complainant is that he has taken a life insurance policy from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through the 3^rd opposite party.  The yearly premium was fixed as Rs.1,93,389.41 and the maturity date of the policy was 28/8/2023.  As per the terms of the policy, the complainant agreed to make payment   for 7 years with the yearly premium fixed. The complainant  happened to incept the policy under the instigation of 3rd opposite party where he was having a savings bank account.   At the initial stage itself the complainant has submitted his inability to make payment of premium for 7 years continuously.  At that time, the 3^rd opposite party assured that whenever you find difficulty to pay premium, you can surrender the policy and get back the amount already paid, with profit.  The complainant paid only one instalment of premium and he could not pay the subsequent premiums.  He approached the 2^nd opposite party to surrender the value of the policy.  Then he was told that the surrender value of the policy will due only on completion of three years continuous payment of premium. Actually as per the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant has to get back 70% of the premium already paid.  The opposite parties were not amenable for that and this complaint is filed for getting relief.

          2. On receiving notice, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties entered  appearance through counsel and filed detailed version.  Whereas the 3^rd opposite party even after accepting notice, neither appeared before the Forum nor submitted any version.  Hence set exparte.  In the version filed by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, they admitted the policy incepted by the complainant, whereas denied all  other allegations stated in the complaint.  According to the opposite parties, the complaint has incepted a unit linked insurance policy.  There was a free look period provided to the complainant to cancel the policy if he was having financial constraint.  The opposite parties submitted that they can only act as per the terms and conditions of the policy which are binding upon the complainant.  The opposite parties further submitted that they have not committed any sort of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          3. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration are that :

1) Whether the complaint is maintainable ?

2) Whether any deficiency in service happened on the part of opposite parties?

3) If so what costs and reliefs ?

          4. From the side of complainant, he has appeared before the Forum and submitted proof affidavit, in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail.  He has also produced two documents which are marked as Exts.P1 and P2.  Ext.P1 is receipt given  for premium paid and Ext.P2 is a letter received from the opposite parties.  From the side of opposite parties, their authorized person appeared before the Forum and submitted counter proof affidavit, in which he has affirmed and described all the contentions raised in their version in detail.  He has also produced 4 documents which are marked as Exts.R1 to R4.  Ext.R1 is policy with terms and conditions, Ext.R2 is copy of letter issued to the complainant, Ext.R3 is copy of another letter issued to the complainant and Ext.R4 is copy of proposal form.  Both side filed detailed argument notes and we heard in detail also.

          5. Admittedly this is a complaint based on a unit linked policy.  As far as the unit linked policies are concerned, it is a very settled position that it cannot be considered as a consumer complaint.  In Ram Lal Agarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Company case, it has very well explained by the Hon’ble National Commission.  In the light of that decision, we are of the opinion that the present case in our hand is also cannot be considered as a consumer complaint and is not maintainable before this Forum.  The 1^st point answered accordingly.  Regarding the deficiency in service and other points are also answered accordingly.

          6. In the result, we dismiss this complaint without cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the  20^th day of May  2017.