Punjab

Amritsar

CC/13/273

Rabinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Met Life India Ins.co. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Feb 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
SCo 100, District Shopping Complex
Amritsar
Punjab
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/273
 
1. Rabinder Kumar
493,Basant Nagar,Majitha Road
Amritsar
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Met Life India Ins.co.
Vani Vilas Road
Bangalore
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 JUDGES Sh. Bhupinder Singh PRESIDENT
  Kulwant Kaur MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

 

Consumer Complaint No.273/13        

 

 Rabinder Kumar                   Vs.                 Met Life India

 

 

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.S.K.Vyas, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Sanjay Kapoor, Advocate.

 

  1. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties pointed out that the policy obtained by the complainant is Unit Linked Insurance Policy and the complainant himself vide proposal/ application form Ex.OP1/2 has opted to invest his entire amount i.e. 100% in Balancer Plan i.e. open market in the form of shares/ equity funds, etc. in speculative business  just to earn  profit. In this regard, he brought the attention of this Forum to declaration form signed by the complainant himself Ex.OP1/3 in which the complainant himself has admitted that he fully understands  that investment in this product is subject to market risks and the actual rate of return may be higher or lower than what has been illustrated and are net of investment management/ other charges. Apart  from this, he also brought the notice of this Forum towards benefit illustration of this Forum Ex.C4, in which it has been clearly mentioned that in this policy, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder. Ld.counsel for the complainant could not rebut these documents executed by the complainant himself which fully proves that  the policy obtained by the complainant which is subject matter of this case, is Unit Linked Insurance Policy vide which the complainant himself opted for investment of his entire premium amount i.e. 100% in open market in the form of shares i.e. equity funds etc i.e. in speculative business  just to earn  profit. So, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant himself opted the investment of his entire premium amount in  the aforesaid policy, in open market in the form of shares i.e. equity funds etc i.e. in speculative business  just to earn  profit, hence for commercial purpose.  As such, the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.  It has been held by  Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and others decided on 23.04.2013 that  where the investment made by the petitioner/ complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policies to gain profit, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Party. Hon’ble State Commission, Orisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in case Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited has 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 Hon’ble State Commission, dismissed the appeal.
  2. Similar are the facts of the present case as the complainant has directed the Opposite Parties to invest his entire amount of premium in the share market to gain profit. Investment in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. Resultantly, we hold that the present complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties, as such, the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate Court/ Forum  having proper jurisdiction. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

 

Dated: 06/02/2015.                                              (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                   President

 

 

hrg                                                                   (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

                                       Member

 

 

 

 

 
 
[JUDGES Sh. Bhupinder Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Kulwant Kaur]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.