(Passed this on 13th October, 2017)
Shri. S.P. Muley, President –
1. This complaint of deficiency in service and unfair trade practise is made against the Opposite Party, IDBI Federal Life Insurance and IDBI Bank for illegally terminating the policy.
2. The complainant is a businessman by profession. He has a current a/c with the O.P.2. The O.P.1 approached him and asked him to invest his saving amount in a life insurance policy linked with Unit. Hence on 4/11/2010 he opted to purchase two insurance policies from the O.P.1, each valued at Rs. 75,000/- for a period of three years. He paid Rs. 25,000/- for both the policies. He authorised the O.P.1 to transfer the funds from his current a/c to O.P.2 by electronic clearance system (ECS). However, the O.P.1 never used ECS facility and therefore after initial investment, no funds were transferred by the O.P.1, nor any intimation was given to him. Hence he was under impression that the O.P.1 would operate the policies by ECS mode. On 22/2/2012 the O.P.1 informed him that one policy was put in discontinuance fund and by letter dt/ 14/3/2013 he was informed about termination of his second policy. Thus he has lost a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of dividends, interest and policy amount. The O.P. have not given him policy document and receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- obtained from him. A notice was given to OPs but it was not complied. Hence this complaint to seek Rs. 3,00,000/- refund, Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 15,000/- cost from the OPs.
3. The O.P.1 filed reply and denied the complaint. Admitting the policies, it is stated, the complainant was interested in gaining huge profits by investing funds. Hence he approached the O.P.1 to know various schemes. He was informed of various schemes, their risk factors, coverage, scope, exclusions, conditions, etc. He then filled up proposal forms. It is denied the plans he chose were insurance policies valued at Rs. 75,000/-. in fact, the policy obtained by him is purely for investment plan to make monetary gain. After investing the amount in the said plan, on 4/11/2010 he again chose to invest in ¨IDBI Federal Wealthsurance Milestone Plan¨ for a term of 10 years. He paid first premium of Rs. 25,000/-. He never gave instruction for ECS mode for further payment of premiums. Accordingly policies were issued with terms and conditions to him. The OPs did not receive renewal premium of both the policies. Hence the policies lapsed. He could have revived the policies within 2 years but he did not do so. Termination of policies is in consonance with terms and conditions. Thus denying the allegations it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The O.P. 2 is ex-parte as it failed to contest despite service of notice.
5. Heard both the Ld counsels. Perused documents. Our findings are as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
6. The first point to be examined is whether the plans opted by the complainant was life insurance plans or investment plans. No policy document is produced by the complainant. His plea is that no policy document was provided to him till date. It is thus contended non supply of terms and conditions of policy amounts to deficiency in service. Reliance is placed on Oriental Insurance Co v/s Satpal Singh II ( 2014) CPJ 374 (NC). But in the facts and circumstances of the case, this plea appears not convincing. Because the complainant is a businessman and knows importance of policy documents. The policies were taken in the year 2010 and till filing of the complaint in 2013 he did not bother to issue a single notice or letter to OPs about non receipt of policy documents is something inscrutable and not convincing. Besides it is nobody´s case that the policies were terminated because of breach of any terms or conditions. Hence, even if it is presumed that terms and conditions were not supplied to him, that does not make any difference on the complaint.
7. The policy schedule produced by the O.P.1 reveals both the policies were purely investment plan and no life insurance cover was given. Therefore, the policies were purchased as investment plans only. Policy under investment plan is out side the purview of the C.P. Act and policy holder under such investment plan cannot be termed as a consumer.
8. If the proposal forms are perused, it would be seen that in the column ¨payment details¨, no instruction of ECS mode is given, rather the column is left blank. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show the O.P. 1 was given instruction to transfer funds to O.P.2 by ECS mode. It is an admitted fact that after initial payment of premium, no further renewal premiums were paid. The documentary evidence on record does not support the say of the complainant that though the O.P.1 was instructed to transfer amount by ECS mode, it was not done so by the O.P.1 and therefore it was the fault of the O.P.1 that the premium remained unpaid. Therefore the judgment in the case of State Bank of Patiala v/s Girija Devi I (2015) CPJ 689 (NC) relied on by the complainant is not applicable. In that case the facts were different. Even otherwise, the policy in this case was not life insurance policy but investment plan to gain monetary profits. Therefore, such policy holder cannot be a consumer as defined in the Act.
9. The O.P. had sent a letter dt/ 22/2/2012 to him informing that due to non payment of premium the funds were moved onto discontinuance fund. He was adviced to revive the policy within 2 years. But he did not pay premium nor did revive the policy. Therefore as per the terms of policy it was terminated. We find no illegality in the decision of the O.P.
10. For aforesaid reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Termination of policies for non payment of premiums was not illegal or arbitrary. Hence the following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
- Copy of judgment/order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.
