Present : None for the complainant

Sh.S.K.Vyas, Adv.counsel for the opposite parties

During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite parties has pointed out that complainant obtained life insurance policy in question bearing No.790471668 dated 24.3.2014 which was sent to the complainant vide welcome letter dated 30.9.2014 ex.OP1,2/9 which is Unit Linked Policy vide which complainant has opted to invest his entire amount of premium in open market in the form of shares in order to earn profit I.e.in speculative business. In this regard, he has pointed the proposal form duly filled in and signed by the complainant ex.OP1,2/5 for obtaining the policy in which it has been categorically mentioned that this policy is Unit Linked Plan and investment risk in investment port folio is borne by the policy holder. Further, he pointed out Column No.9(c) of this proposal form in which complainant has opted investment of his entire amount I.e.100% in balanced ratio. In the policy ex.OP1,2/9 which was duly received by the complainant,it has been categorically mentioned on page 1 of the policy that it is Unit Linked Insurance Plan and investment in balanced fund is defined on page 2 I.e.investment is to be made in money market instrument,corporate bonds, Government Securities etc.. On page 20 of the policy, fund statement as on 28.3.2014 was stated to the complainant in which it has been clearly mentioned that No.allocation and closing units was 3452.02 and market value of funds was Rs.95026.53. This policy has been duly received by the complainant. Counsel for the complainant has not rebutted the documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties I.e.proposal form and policy which has been duly received by the complainant. So, it stands proved on record that complainant has obtained Unit Linked Insurance Plan Policy in which the complainant has opted investment of his entire amount of premium in open market in the form of shares I.e.to earn profit/speculative gain. As such, complainant is not a consumer. It has been held by the Hon'bleNational Commission in case Ram Lal Aggarwala Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited reported in 2013(3) CPJ 203 (NC ) as well as by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case Paramjit Kaur Versus Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited in complaint No.96 of 2011, date of institution 29.11.2011, date of decision 4.7.2014 and further held by the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission in case Narinder Kaur & others Versus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited 2015 (3) CLT page 411 that in respect of claim under Unit Linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under the Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business. Complainant, thus, does not become a consumer of the opposite party insurance company with regard to the Unit Linked Insurance Policy. Resultantly, as the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum, therefore, it is ordered that complaint be returned to the complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the same before the appropriate court/authority. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

5.10.2015 President

Member (K)