Complaint No: 239 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 22.07.2019.
Date of order: 07.12.2023.
Kuldeep Singh Son of Kartar Singh, resident of Village Bhaini Mian Khan Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143517.
…..........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. MAX Life Insurance Company Ltd., Y.P. Tower, Jail Road, Gurdaspur, through its Manager. 143521.
2. MAX Life Insurance Company Ltd., 90A Sector 18, Ugyog Vihar, Gurugram – 122015, through its Managing Director.
3. Satpal Singh, Agent of MAX Life Insurance Company Ltd., R/o Vill. Bhikhari Harni Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 143528
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the complainant: Sh.Rahul Puri, Advocate.
For the opposite party No.1: Sh.B.S.Dhakala, Advocate.
Opposite parties No.2 & 3: Exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Kuldeep Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against MAX Life Ins. Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant obtained Two Life Insurance Policies in the year 2009 from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 bearing Policies No. 747318533 and 747318541 worth Rs.2 lakh each, date of maturity of the above mentioned policies was 18.06.2019. It is pleaded that the complainant obtained the above mentioned policies at the instance of the OP No. 3 who is the duly authorized agent of the opposite parties No.1 and 2. It is pleaded that it was allured to the complainant by the OP No. 3 that the complainant will have to pay installments for ten years thereafter, and thereafter, he will get double of the amount after maturity of the policy along with other benefits. It is further pleaded that the above said policies have matured on 18.06.2019 and as per terms and conditions of the policies, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.4,00,000/- again each policy i.e. double of the insured amount alongwith other vested benefits. It is pleaded that to the utter surprise of the complainant, the opposite parties have sent cheque bearing No. 212465 dated 18.06.2019 for Rs.2,09,163.57 paisa drawn on AXIS Bank Ltd, branch Gurgaon against payment of policy No. 747318533 and cheque bearing No. 212463 dated 18.06.2019 for Rs.2,06,838.46 paisa drawn on AXIS Bank Ltd, branch Gurgaon against payment of policy No. 747318541, instead of making payment of double amount of the policies as assured to him at the time of taking the above said policies by the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant had been approaching the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 through the OP No. 3 time and again and requesting for the payment of remaining amount of Rs.3,83,977.97 paisa which is less paid to him, as the complainant is entitled to receive double amount of the said policies on its maturity, but the opposite parties are putting the matter with one or the other excuse and till today they have not paid single penny to the complainant. It is further pleaded that act of the opposite parties of not making double of the insured amount is totally illegal, null and void, and is against the rules of the policy. The opposite parties by not making payment of double of the insured amount are trying to back out from their pious obligation of making payment of the insured amount to its policy holder. It is pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to make the remaining payment of Rs.3,83,977.97 paisa i.e. double of maturity value of the said policies in question to the complainant in terms of the policies along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of maturity till actual realization. It is further prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant besides the amount in question on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- may also be awarded in favour of the complainant after accepting this complaint, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Hon'ble Court, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is pleaded that the complainant desired to purchase the policy, so he approached the opposite party No.1 and expressed his desire that he wants to invest his money and wants to purchase the policy, the official of the opposite party No.1 disclosed plan in detail regarding Unit Linked Investment plan and disclosed that the money to be invested by the complainant will be invested in fixed interest securities such as Govt. Securities, Corporate Bond and money market investments, etc. and as the policy being an Unit Linked policy and is dependent on the market volatility and the value may go up or may come down depending upon the market condition. It is further pleaded that after accepting the terms and conditions of the above said ULIP Policy, the complainant was ready for purchasing the policy with his free consent without any pressure and on the basis of proposal form submitted by the complainant, the opposite parties issued two policies bearing No. 747318533 and 747318541 on 16.06.2009 with sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- each respectively and the premium of both the policies were of Rs.20,000/- per annum each and 10 premium was to be paid. It is further pleaded that after purchasing the policy, as per terms of policy, there was 15 days time for free look period to change the policy. Free look means "there is a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this policy to review the terms and conditions of this policy. If you disagree to any of the terms and conditions of this policy, you have the option to return the original policy to us, by stating the objections / reason for such disagreement. Upon return of this policy by you, this policy shall terminate forthwith and all rights, benefits including the death and maturity benefit and interests under this policy shall cease immediately. We will only refund the premium for the period of cover, charges of stamps duty paid and the expenses incurred on medical examination of the life, if any". It is further pleaded that but the complainant had not raised any objection regarding the policy or change of any terms and conditions nor did he request for refund of the amount within 15 days, Mean thereby that the complainant was agreeable with the policy. It is pleaded that with his free consent the complainant deposited premium for the remaining period and after the maturity of the policy as per terms and conditions and as per profit from market the total amount more than invested amount were paid to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant wants to misuse the process of law to get undue gain and benefit from the opposite parties and illegally demanded double the amount of the invested amount. It is pleaded that policies have already been completed. So now after completion of policies and after paying the maturity amount to the complainant, now the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties and he is not entitled for any relief from this Hon'ble Commission and this Hon'ble Court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant only to injure the goodwill and reputation of the opposite party No. 1 and even otherwise, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and as such the opposite party No.1 is entitled to get special costs from the complainant U/s 26 of the C.P. Act. It is further pleaded that the complainant is estopped from filling the present complaint by his own act, conduct commission, omission, negligence's acquiescence etc. It is pleaded that on this ground the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite party as falsely alleged by the complainant. It is pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Commission as such liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that no alleged cause of action has ever arisen qua the present complaint within territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission, hence the Hon'ble Court no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint against the answering opposite party. It is pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the complainant is not consumer, as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act with respect to the present complaint in question, hence the complaint deserves dismissal qua the replying opposite party.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Sh. Gurpreet Singh and Sh. Prabhjot Singh Mahal, counsels have appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. After that, none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order date 21.10.2019.
5. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 01.10.2019.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kuldeep Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms. Pallavi Sharma, (Assistant Manager, MAX Life Ins. Co. Ltd, Gurgaon) as Ex.OP-1/2 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/10.
8. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
9. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
10. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased two life insurance policies from opposite parties No.1 and 2 and the opposite party No.3 had assured the complainant that he will get double amount after maturity. It is further argued that after maturity of the policies on 18.06.2019 the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.8,00,000/- in total. However, opposite parties No.1 and 2 illegally and unlawfully deducted amount of Rs.3,83,977.97 from the total payable amount which amounts to deficiency in service.
11. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that complainant had himself approached the opposite parties and was fully explained regarding Unit Linked Investment Plan and was informed that money is to be invested in fixed interest securities such as govt. securities, corporate bond and money market investments etc. and as such policy being a unit linked policy is dependent on market volatility and value may go up and down as per share market condition. It is further argued that after issuance of policies if the terms and conditions of the policies were not acceptable to the complainant the complainant was within his right to avail 15 days Free Look Period and get the policy cancalled but since the complainant himself accepted the policies and as such had not opted for cancellation of the policies and whatever amount was payable to the complainant was paid and as such complaint is not maintainable. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Ins. Co. Ltd. wherein it has been held as under:-
"That the policy of the complainant is an Unit (Marked) Linked Policy and law is now well settled that such policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such the policy holder are not consumer and disputes relative to such policies are not sustainable before the consumer court. Hence, this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain try and decide the present complaint".
12. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 remained exparte.
13. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and gone through the record.
14. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased two life insurance policies which were unit linked policies which was issued to the complainant on 17.06.2019 and effective date of coverage was from 16.06.2019. The perusal of policy schedule Ex.OP-1/5 clearly shows that the policies issued to the complainant was a unit linked policy which is dependent on the volatility on the share market and as such we are of the view that allegations of the complainant that the double amount was promised after maturity is totally uncalled for as no such liability of payment of double amount is mentioned in Ex.OP-1/5. We are of the view that the policies being a unit linked policies are dependent on the market volatility and the value may go up and down as per the volatility of the share market and as such the complainant is not entitled to receive double the amount as claimed in the complaint. Further, perusal of proposal form Ex.OP-1/9 shows that the said form has been duly signed by the complainant in the columns where signatures are required to be put. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party No.3 obtained signatures on blank papers or that the complainant was not explained about the same. As such we are of the view that complainant has miserably failed to prove deficiency in service o the part of the opposite parties. As such by relying upon the documents on record, case law referred in case of Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company, the present compliant being without any merit is ordered to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Dec. 07, 2023 Member.
*YP*
