Haryana

Karnal

301/2012

Prem Murit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max New York Life Insurance Company Pvt.Ltd., Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Satpal Singh

03 Sep 2015

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.301 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 13.06.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 9.10.2015

 

Prem Murti, resident of Karnal Manav Sewa Sangh ,Karnal.

                                                   ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. through its Manager, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

2.MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. Regd.Office, Max House, 3ard floor, I, Dr.Jha Marg, Okhla, New Delhi through its authorized signatory.

                                                           ……… Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.Satpal Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Dinesh Chauhan Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER:

 

                   The facts giving rise to the present complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,(herein after referred to as the Act)  are that officials of the Opposite Parties ( in short OP) approached him for investment of Rs.20,000/- per year for three years for a policy and he3 was assured after completion of three years, he would get 10% per annum on the invested amount. On that assurance he invested Rs.20,000/- per year and got insurance policy bearing No. 489398495 for three years w.e.f.   6.6.2008 for a total sum insured  Rs.2.00 lacs, after completion of three years which was the minimum period of investment for continuing the policy. He received letter in February, 2012 alongwith cheque no. 0000424392 dated 21.2.2012 for Rs.19985.23. It was mentioned in the letter that policy was surrendered on his request. In fact, he  never requested to surrender the policy and issue surrender value of the policy in question, because he had invested for the purpose of savings for future.  The act and conduct of the Ops amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who  appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that complainant after fully  understanding and deliberating upon the terms and conditions of Max Life Smart  Assure (Unit Linked investment plan)”  submitted duly signed proposal form  No.489398495  dated 27.5.2008 pursuant to which insurance policy was issued on 6.6.2008 for a sum assured of Rs.2.00 lacs under the plan.  On 12.5.2009 and 7.6.2009 OPs sent  renewal premium notice to the complainant. On 7.7.2009, the complainant was informed that policy had lapsed.  On 13.7.2009, the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/-  and the receipt regarding the same was sent by Ops on 13.8.2009. Thereafter, on 7.5.2010,  Ops again sent renewal premium notice and on 6.6.2010 statement of accounts was sent to him.  On 8.6.2010  the OPs received cash payment of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and sent premium receipt to him on 9.6.2010.  Again on 8.5.2011, Ops sent renewal premium notice to the complainant. The statement of accounts was sent to the complainant on 6.6.2011 and then complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- on 5.7.2011 and receipt in that regard was sent by the OPs on 6.7.2011.  The Ops terminated the policy on 23.2.2012 and refund cheque bearing No. 424392 for an amount of Rs.19,985.23 was sent to the complainant. It has further been pleaded that terms and conditions of the policy were well explained to the complainant. The policy was terminated in accordance with the terms  of the  contract.  Since the fund value of the policy had depreciated below  one ATP , the policy was terminated and surrender value of Rs.19985/- was refunded to the complainant. There is no bonafide consumer dispute between the parties. It has also been pleaded that complainant had opted for unit linked investment plan and as such depreciation of policy was subject to investment risk. The said fact was specifically communicated to the complainant and was also mentioned in terms of the policy.

 

3.                 In evidence  of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10  have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of Ops, affidavit of  Rachna Yadav, Assistant Manager  Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex. R12 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6                  There is no dispute between the parties, that the complainant had obtained Unit Linked policy from the Ops and deposited Rs.20,000/- each for three years as annual premium of the policy.  However, on 23.2.2012 Ops terminated the policy on the ground that fund value  of the policy had depreciated below one ATP  (annual target premium of Rs.20,000/-) and the surrender value of Rs.19985/- was refunded to the complainant.

                        The proposal form submitted by the complainant for obtaining the policy which was unit linked is Ex.R1 and the same was duly signed by him. Neither it has been specifically alleged nor there is any material on record  on the basis of which it can be said that proposal form was not read over and explained to the complainant before he signed the same. According to the clause no.9 of the proposal form, the amount invested  by the complainant was to be invested   in dynamic opportunities fund, the details of the same were mentioned in the said clause.   In the  copy of the insurance policy Ex.R9, investment pattern of dynamic opportunities fund was mentioned at page no.5.  Clause no.13 is regarding termination of the policy.  As per clause No.13 (iv), if at any time after the third policy anniversary, the fund value equals to or less than one ATP, the policy will be terminated and the surrender value, if any, would be paid. Thus, the question arises as to what was the fund value at the relevant time  when the policy of the complainant was terminated by the OPs.

 

8.                 Copy of  Insurance premium Ex.R12 indicates that fund value of the dynamic opportunities fund  regarding the policy of the complainant was Rs.19320.69p after third policy anniversary.  As the fund value was less than  annual target premium of Rs.20,000/- at the relevant time, the Ops had right to terminate the policy as per the aforesaid terms and conditions of the policy. The Ops had terminated the policy of the complainant on the said ground and paid him  the surrendered value. Under such circumstances the action on the part of Ops terminating the policy of the complainant  and paying him surrender value , cannot be termed as illegal or  unwarranted  or unjustified in any manner.

 

9.                 The learned counsel for the Ops has also raised one legal question that  investment of the premium in the policy of the complainant was  unit linked subject to market risk, which was  for  speculative gains, therefore, the complainant does not fall within the scope of consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. In this regard he sought sustenance  from   Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2013(3) CPJ (NC) 203, wherein it was held   by the Hon’ble Odisha  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttak that  policy was taken for  investment of premium amount in share market which was for speculative gains, therefore, the complainant did not fall within the scope of consumer under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, his complaint was not sustainable.

 

10.               In the present case also the policy taken by the complainant  was unit linked subject to market risk. The amount invested by the complainant was to be invested in the  dynamic opportunities fund.  In this way, the  premium amount of the complainant was to be invested in shares market which was certainly for speculative gains. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the aforecited authority, the complainant does not fall within the ambit of definition of Consumer as provided under the Act. Therefore, his complaint is not maintainable on this ground also.

 

11.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and consequently, the  same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:09.10.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.