ORDER               Date: 27 February 2017

Manju Bala Sharma, Member

          Instant complaint has been filed by the complainants on 21/05/2016 alleging therein that the complainant No. 1 on the advice of Ms. Komal Chopra and Mr. Shailesh   the Insurance Advisors of OP, subscribed OP’s Policy No. ALE  290891 dtd 31/03/2010 for a period of 20 years and the sum assured was Rs. 3,75,000/- and the annual subscription was Rs. 75,000/- which was collected by the aforesaid Insurance Advisors and acknowledgements were issued with the assurance that the same was best investment.  It is further stated that Complainant No. 1 deposited the annual premiums of  Rs. 75,000/- vide receipts dated 07/04/2011 and 02/04/2012 and thus deposited Rs. 2,25,000 till March 2012.  

          As complainant received intimation notice for payment of annual subscription in March 2013 the complainant called the aforesaid Insurance Advisors for collecting the money and the Insurance Advisors advised to the complainant that since policy relates to the market returns and is very risky and due to market fluctuations advised to convert this policy into another suitable policy wherein the complainant shall receive a guaranteed minimum return till the time of the maturity.  A cheque for the sum of Rs. 75,268/-, Rs. 75,000/- as premium amount and           Rs. 268/- as conversion charges with the details of complainant No. 2 for nomination purposes besides signatures of both the complainants on several bank forms was given to the aforesaid Insurance Advisors and on 06/04/2013 the complainants received Policy No. TDW 3199202 in the name of Complainant No. 2 wherein the sum assured was Rs. 3.75.000/- for a term of 11 years  and annual subscription was Rs. 75,268/-  and amount show as deposited towards annual premium was also Rs. 75,268/-.  The complainants immediately contacted the Insurance Advisors about non-mentioning of the earlier payment of Rs. 2,25,000/- to which the Insurance Advisors stated that due to some technical reasons the previous policy could not  be continued in the name of complainant No. 1 and it has been converted/issued in the name of complainant No. 2.  In August 2013 the complainants were shocked to receive a termination letter dated 02/08/2013 along with a refund cheque of Rs. 75,000/- informing about the termination due to non-payment of annual subscription and forefeiture of Rs. 1,50,000/- the complainants tried to contact the Insurance Advisors but they ignored to take the phone calls.  The complainant filed a written complaint with OP and the OP vide its reply dated 26/08/2013.       

          In reply OP admitted that Policy No. ALE 2910987 with annual subscription of Rs. 75,000/- for 20 years was issued in favour of complainant No. 1 in March 2010 and Policy No. TDW 3199202 with annual subscription of Rs. 75268/- which was to be paid for 6 years with 11 years terms was issued in favour of Complainant No. 2 in March 2013 and denied rest of the allegations contained in the complaint and stated as complainants were in receipt of policy documents including the ‘Right to Reconsider Notice’ vide which the policy holder can cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents if he /she disagrees with any of the terms and conditions of the policy and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

          The complainants have filed rejoinder to the reply and explained that the objections taken by OP are baseless.  In support of the complaint the complainants filed affidavits along with documents Ex CW 1/ 2 copy of  Policy No. ALE 2910981 EX CW 1/3 (Colly), receipts issued by OP for the three annual subscription paid by complainant, Ex Cw 1 /4, copy of  Policy No. TDW 319902, EX CW 1/5 (Colly), copy of  termination letter and cheque Ex CW 1/6 (Colly), copy of complaint lodged with OP with its reply Ex CW 1/6 A (Colly) copy of bank statement reflecting the premium of Complainant and Ex CW 1/7 (Colly) legal notice along with its postal receipt.    

          OP also affidavit of Shri Bhaskar  Bhuwan  (authorized signatory) in support of its reply along with documents Ex RW 1 /2 (colly) and  RW 1 /4(Colly), copy of proposal form, benefit illustration alongwith other proposal documents, Ex RW 1/ 3 (Colly) and RW 1/6 copy of standard terms and conditions Ex RW 1/ 5, copy of call record Ex RW 1/7 (colly), copy of replies to the letters of Complainant sent by OP and Ex RW 1/8 copy of reply sent to the legal notice of complainant.  Shri Bhuwan Bhaskar (authorized signatory) also filed an affidavit on the direction of the Forum dated 16/09/2015 and 16/10/2015 stating therein that Ms Komal Chopra named by the complainants in their complaint is posted on Financial Planning Advisor with OP at its Janak Puri Branch and on Mr.  Shailesh’s details are not furnished by complainants, OP Company is unable  to generate any details regarding alleged advisor.  Shri Bhuwan Bhaskar (authorized signatory) further filed an affidavit on the direction of this Form dt 05/01/2016 stating that no person by name of Shailesh was ever employed with Janak Puri Branch from 2009 till date and the fact is stated from the records maintained by OP.

          We have heard the counsel for the parties, gone through the documents as well as written arguments filed by the parties .  In this case points to be considered are as under:

          1.       Whether complainants are consumer?

          2.       Whether there is any deficiency/ unfair trade practice on the part of OP?

          3.       Relief.

          In the present complaint the policies taken by the complainants are unit link policies and taken for investment of premium amount in share market which is for speculative gain and unit linked plans are given an opportunity to earn market linked returns as part of premium are invested in market linked funds and not for indemnification.  As the money invested by the complainants is for speculative gain and speculative investments does not come within the ambit of Consumer  Protection Act, the complainants  are not ‘consumer’ within the meaning of sec 2 (1) (g)   of the Consumer Protection Act.

          As complainants are not consumers therefore, there is no need to decide the remaining points of consideration by this Forum.

          Hence complaint is dismissed.  Both the parties will bear their own cost.

Copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on this    27 February 2017