Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/55

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madan Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Anmol Kamal Sharma

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      55

Date of Institution:  5.05.2014

Date of Decision :   24.03.2015

 

 

Jagtar Singh s/o Sh Jarnail Singh r/o H. No. 627-B, W No 15, Jaitu Road, Str No. 1, r. Chandigarh Hospital, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.                                                    

   ...Complainant

Versus

1. Mohan Lal, agent Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual LIC Ltd, 2032-A, 2^nd Floor, Gees Mall, the Mall Road, Bathinda, 151001, India.

2. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual LIC Ltd, 2032-A, 2^nd Floor, Gees Mall, the Mall Road, Bathinda, 151001, India through Branch Manager.

3. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual LIC Ltd, Central Processing Centre, 8^th Floor, Godrej Coliseum Behind Everard Nagar, Sion (East) Mumbai 400 022, India through its Chief Operating Officer.

                                                             ..Opposite Parties(Ops)

 

 Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

 

Present: Sh A K Sharma, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh A S Sekhon, Ld Counsel for OP-2 & 3.

              Claim against OP-1 relinquished by Complainant.

              

(A K Mehta, President)

 

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Mohan Lal, agent Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual LIC Ltd etc/OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the insurance premium deposit of Rs 15,000/-with interest at the rate of 18% per anum and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension and Rs 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant got insured himself for Rs 225,000.00 vide Policy No. 01632036 dt 30.06.2009 under Kotak Smart Advantage (UIN-107L043V01), and was to pay instalment premium for a term of 10 years with Ops through Sh Mohan Lal agent/OP-1 and paid first instalment of Rs 15,000/- vide cheque no. 080775 dt 22.06.2009 of S B I Kotkapura to OP-1; that due to some domestic problems, complainant could not pay further instalments to Ops; that it is provided in Clause 8 at Page 11 of Policy that the Policy can be revived within two years from the date of first unpaid premium or the Policyholder can continue the Policy in ACM mode till the end of policy term by giving a request in writing to the company before completion of two years from the date of first unpaid premium and if the policy is not revived or no such written request is given within the aforementioned period of two years, the policy shall automatically stand terminated and surrender value, if any on that date, shall be paid”; that complainant requested Ops many times to refund the premium amounts so deposited by the complainant with interest upto date, but Ops have paid only a sum of Rs 1,500/- only vide letter dt 10-07-2012 and nothing else; that act and conduct of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and has caused financial loss, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension and Rs 5000/- as litigation  expenses besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 7.05.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                 On receipt of the notice, the OP-2 and OP-3 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, being time barred as subject policy was issued in June 2009 to complainant and now, complainant has approached the Forum after expiry of five years to seek refund of premium which is barred by time and complainant has also not sought condonation of delay and thus, complaint is not maintainable; that complaint is not maintainable on the ground that there is no allegation to show that any act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in service or negligence, which gives any cause of action to complainant to file the present complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and in the absence of deficiency in service, the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but can not insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the OP which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service; that as per policy contract, if the policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get his/her policy reviewed/cancelled by returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days “Free Look Period” from the day, the policy holder received the policy and Insurance Company will return the premium paid to complainant after making certain deductions, but in the present case, complainant did not approach the answering Ops for cancellation of his policy within “Free Look Period” of 15 days, which imply that complainant duly accepted the policy and its documents with its terms and conditions; that as per clause 4 (1) and 6 (2) of the IRDA Regulations, 2002, answering Ops sent the policy and policy documents alongwith copy of proposal form to complainant giving him opportunity to review/cancel the same within “Free Look Period”, but complainant did not approach the answering Ops for redressal of his grievance and straight way filed the present complaint in the Forum and as per terms and conditions of the Proposal form, complainant is now stopped from raising any grievance or issue relating to policy as complainant is bound by the policy contract and has given up his right by not exercising the Free Look Period; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops as complainant has himself failed to pay the renewal premium on the due date under the subject policy to keep the same alive and complainant’s own omission, commission, negligence and fault, allowed the policy to lapse for which the complainant himself is liable and the answering Ops cannot be made accountable in any manner, thus, present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground and complainant is not entitled for the refund of premium under the policy; that it is settled principle of Law that the issue under Unit Linked Insurance Policies are not the subject matter of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that allegations levelled by complainant are false, frivolous and untenable and a concocted story and it is settled principle of law that at the time of filling up the proposal form, the agent acts as agent of insured and not of Insurance Company and no agent can be assumed to have authority from the insurer to write answer in the proposal form; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and complainant is not entitled to get relief under terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in question. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. On 17.10.2014, Complainant got recorded his statement to the effect that he has given up OP-1 and he is to obtain insurance claim only from Insurance Company.

5                            Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 and C-3 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP-2 & 3 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Shakil Ahmed Sr Manager Legal as Ex OP-1 and then, closed the evidence.

7                        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file.

8                                 The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant obtained an insurance policy from the OP on the assurance of OP-1 that the insurance policy in question is beneficial and will give good return. He contended that complainant filled up the proposal form and policy dated 30.06.2009 Ex C-2 was issued to complainant and sum assured was Rs 2,25,000/- and term of premium was 10 years and premium amount was Rs 15,000/- per anum. He contended that complainant paid first instalment of Rs 15,000/- vide cheque dated 22.06.2009 to OP-1 and thereafter, insurance policy Ex C-2 was issued to the complainant. He contended that as per clause 8 provided in the insurance policy Ex C-2, if the subscriber fails to pay the regular instalment and also fails to revive the policy for two years, then, subscriber is entitled to surrender value. He contended that OP paid only Rs 1,500/-vide letter dated 10.07.2012 as complainant failed to revive the policy but the amount is not in accordance with the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Rules. He contended that complainant requested the Ops to refund the full premium along with interest but with no effect and this conduct of the OP caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complainant is entitled to refund of premium amount of Rs 15,000/- alongwith interest and compensation and litigation expenses as claimed in the complaint.

9                          The Ld Counsel for Ops contended that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint as the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ because insurance policy in question is a ‘Unit Linked Plan’ and depends on the trend of the market for its value. He contended that complainant is well aware of this fact but he has wrongly filed this complaint in order to obtain illegal advantage and to illegally recover the amount from the OP Insurance Company and as such, complaint is without merits and is liable to be dismissed.

10                             After going through the record of the case and the evidence and documents produced by the parties on the file, this Forum finds force in the contentions of the ld counsel for Ops. In case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwala Vs Bajaj  Allianz Life Insurance Company and others 2013 (3) Consumer Protection Judgments 203, insurance policy was issued and a question arose whether complaint under Consumer Protection Act is maintainable or not and it was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi that the policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in Share Market which is for speculative gain, complainant does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and complaint is not maintainable. In the case in hand, the complainant has proved insurance policy Ex C-2 on the file. This policy shows that the name of plan of insurance policy was Kotak Mahindera Smart Advantage. It is further mentioned on page 5 of the policy Ex C-2 that Kotak Mahindera Smart Advantage is a Unit Linked Endowment Assurance Plan. Moreover, even on page 7 of the Insurance Policy Ex C-2, it is clearly mentioned that this plan is Unit Linked Endowment Assurance Plan. As such, it is clear that the policy in question is a Unit Linked Policy and in this eventuality, complainant does not come within the ‘purview’ of the consumer because he obtained the policy for speculative gain as the value of the policy rises or falls with the market trend as the amount of the Insurance Policy is invested in Share Market. As the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer, therefore, complaint under Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable and as such, complaint is meritless and is liable to be dismissed though complainant can avail other remedies as provided under the law.

11                              In the light of above discussion, complainant fails to prove his case on the file and the complaint is dismissed. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 24.03.2015

                                   Member            Member                  President

 (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)     (A K Mehta