BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.24 of 2015
Date of Instt. 27.01.2015
Date of Decision :02.07.2015
Harbhajan Singh son of Gian Singh R/o H.No.1, Satkartar Nagar, Near Johal Market, Jalandhar-144003.
..........Complainant Versus
Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd, Puda Complex, Near Bhaskar News Paper, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite party
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.YV Rishi Adv., counsel for opposite party.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite party on the averments that he is retired Punjab Government employee and obtained life insurance policy No.LLG1244213 under the plan, Life Long Unit Linked with the annual premium amount of Rs.25,000/- only and the sum assured was Rs.1,27,000/-. The policy was obtained on 5.7.2006 through Sh.Gaurav Mehta, Advisor, of the opposite party insurance company. He deposited premium of Rs.25,000/- per annum continuously upto 26.8.2011. He could not pay regular instalment due to domestic circumstances and his policy lapsed. He approached manager of opposite party insurance company to return the amount under article 15. He visited the office of opposite party insurance company in 2013 and 2014 and demanded the policy amount of Rs.1,50,000/- but the manager offered face value of amount of Rs.51,266/- only whereas he had deposited Rs.1,50,000/-. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for return of the deposited amount by the opposite party insurance company.
2. Upon notice opposite party insurance company appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, raising preliminary objection that the policy opted by the complainant is investment oriented for 100% investments of the premium money in units with 100% Unit Linked Profit Fund. The said plan is a whole life unitized cum savings plan in which payment could be made upto the age of 85 years. The premium paid is utilized for units at their current purchase price on the date of allocation. All benefits payments are made in encashing units in the policy account. As such the complaint is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed. On merits it pleaded that complainant paid regular premiums under the policy upto the year 2011 and thereafter defaulted in making further payment of installments and reinstating it as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is not out of place to mention that the complainant on 15.9.2010 made partial withdrawals of Rs.54,000/- from his policy. The policy became paid upto 5.8.2012 as per its terms and conditions. The complainant has already received Rs.54,000/- as partial withdrawal in the year 2010 and the opposite party has provided insurance cover to the complainant till date and as such as per terms and conditions of his policy, he is entitled to its face value of the policy only. It is worth mentioning that the fund value of the subject policy as on 20.4.2015 is Rs.52,392/-. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copy of document Ex.C1 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Without going into merits of the case, we are of the opinion that present complaint is not maintainable as the policy obtained by the complainant was admittedly Unit Linked Policy. In the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that he obtained the life insurance policy No.LLG1244213 under the plan Life Long Unit Linked. Ex.OP1 is proposal form and in the type of fund, against column Unit Linked Fund, balanced fund 100% is mentioned meaning thereby that the complainant had opted for investment of his amount in balanced fund. Unit Linked Policy are speculative in nature. 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".
7. 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.
8. The ratio of above cited authorities is fully applicable on the facts of the present case.
9. In view of above discussion, we hold that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and as such complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. However, complainant is at liberty to approach Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum for addressal of his grievance. 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
02.07.2015 Member Member President
