Smt. R.K.Madanavally, Member
The complainant availed a policy under opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 by the persuation of opposite party No.3. The complainant joined in the policy on 15/3/11 by paying Rs.50,000/- and obtained the policy vide No.14289010. The 3rd opposite party made him believe that he will collect the annual premium from the complainant for 3 years and after completion of 3 years the complainant will get 2 lakhs rupees and other benefits. But after collecting the 1st premium as there was no response from the opposite party No.3, the complainant contacted several times and he did not made the 2nd and 3rd premium.
On 20/3/14, the complainant demanded the amount of Rs.50,000/- which has paid by him. But up to this time no amount was paid by the opposite parties and the complainant alleges deficiency upon the opposite parties and hence filed this complaint.
Opposite party No.1 and 2 filed written version. No steps were taken against opposite party No.3. The allegations in the complaint are disputed by the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties the policy taken by the complainant participates in the profits of the participating policy holder fund of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Which is speculative investment and a speculative gain So the complainant is not a consumer and hence liable to be dismissed.
The policy availed by the complainant is based on the proposal submitted by the complainant for issuance of the HDFC savings Assurance Policy. The policy was chosen by the complainant himself. He had chosen the sum assured, premium amount payable, premium frequency and the term of the policy. The policy was for a period of 16 years. The complainant is an educated person. He submitted the application only after being convinced of the terms and conditions of the policy. He could have opted for returns of the policy during the free looking period, if he was not satisfied with the conditions in the policy. That was not done.
The contract of insurance is contract based upon the terms and conditions of policy. Hence this liability is committed to the terms and conditions and limitation of the policy. So there is no deficiency on their part and so the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.
Here, the point arises for our consideration here in are;
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
(2) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service?
Relief and cost.
Point No.1 and 2
The complainant filed Chief Affidavit and Ext. A1 marked. Ext. A1 is the copy of Policy Certificate issued by opposite party No.1 and 2 infavour of the complainant. Opposite party did not filed chief affidavit or document.
The opposite parties main contention is that the complainant is not consumer since the policy ie HDFC Standared Life Insurance Co.Ltd, is a Speculative investment and a speculative gain.
The Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in 2013(2) CPR 389 (NC), held that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case which is coming under unit linked policy and there is not doubt, a speculative gain and speculative investment in such matters.
The 1st point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2 and 3
In view of the discussion we are not in a position to entertain the complaint.
Hence the complaint is returned for filing in a proper court.
Dated this 28th day of June , 2016.
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : copy of Policy Certificate issued by opposite party No.1 and 2 infavour of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
