CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th June, 2016

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                      Date  of filing : 9/12/2015

                :  SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC /186/2015

Vasanthakumari,

W/o.Chandrasekharan,

‘Aswathy’, House No.

Near L.P.School, Thottakkara Post

Ottapalam - 679 102                                                :        Complainant

(By Advs K.Narayanankutty and

K.Dhananjayan)

  Vs

1. M/s.HDFC Standard Life Insurance,                        :        Opposite parties

    Regd.Office, Ramon House,

    H T Parekh Marg, 169 Back Bay

    Reclamation, Mumbai – 400 020.   

2. M/s.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd-

    Represented by Manager/Principle Administrative

    Officer/Authorised Signatory

    HDFC Life Insurance Co.Ltd,

    2^nd Floor A wing, Trade star Building

    Andheri Kurla Road, Andhery

    East Bombay 400 059

3. The Manager/Authorised signatory

    Ramson House, DFC Life Insurance Co Ltd,

    HD Parekh Marg, 169 Back Bay

    Reclamation, Mumbai – 400 020.   

4. The Manager/Authorised Signatory,

    HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co Ltd,

    2^nd Floor, Udaya Towers,

    Opp.Rappadi Stadium,

    West Fort Road, Palakkad.

   (By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran)

 O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The complainant took a HDFC pension scheme policy on 28/2/2009 the policy bears no.12697778.  At the time of canvassing the policy the agent projected that the policy is and would be beneficial to the complainant and will fetch a handsome marginal returns even on its discontinuation before maturity.  Eventhough it was stated that the term of the policy is 10 years, it was never being disclosed by the agent that what would be the effect on the discontinuation of the policy on an earlier date.  The term of the policy was for 10 years and premium was Rs.1 lakh per year.  The complainant submits that the policy document was handed only after the remittance of the 1^st premium.  When the 2^nd installment of the premium was due the complainant could not remit the premium due to the stringent financial conditions  and also due to the large amount of premium.  When the complainant enquired about the sum assured of the policy at the time of maturity the 4^th opposite party could not give a satisfactory reply to the complainant.  So the complainant meticulously gone through the policy documents issued by opposite parties.  It is no where stated that what is the sum assured of this policy, it is quite impossible for any person to understand and perceive what is actually being intended, regarding the benefits and burdens, impact and implications etc.  When the complainant found that the policy could be of any help, she has opted for surrender of the policy in 2015.  She sent a letter to the opposite parties, except 4^th opposite party, expressing her intention to surrender the policy and also  demanded to return to Rs.1,72,000/- i.e calculated as 12% for 1 lakh if it was deposited in any nationalized bank from 2010 onwards from the time the first premium was paid.  Even the opposite parties received the notice none has made any positive response.  There was no further communications from the opposite parties.  Amount was also not returned.                               

Hence the complainant had approached before the Forum seeking an order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,72,000/-   and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as damages for the mental agony and also to pay the cost of this litigation.

The notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed version contending the following.  The above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complaint is barred by law of limitation.  The policy of the complainant was issued on 28/2/2009 and the present complaint is filed in 2015, after a period of 6 years and hence hopelessly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.   The policy taken by the complainant is a unit linked policy and is a speculative investment and is a speculative gain and the matter does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.  The allegation in para.3 of the complaint that she was posing that the policy should fetch a handsome marginal returns even on its discontinuation before maturity is false and denied.  The policy was issued to the complainant based on the proposal form submitted by her.  The complainant herself has declared that she has read and understood the products as described in the sales illustration and sales literature.  The complainant has also declared that she has received the sale illustration provided by the company in the prescribed manner and that she has read and understood the same.  The complainant also had an option of returning the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. The complainant was also made known that on receipt of the original policy document the company shall arrange to refund the value of units allocated to the complainant on the date of receipt of request plus the unallocated part of the premium plus charges levied by cancellation of units, subject to deduction of the stamp duty.  The act of the complainant in not returning the policy for the cancellation within the free look period itself shows that   the complainant was satisfied with the policy.  The policy taken by the complainant is a unit linked pension policy and hence there will be no sum assured by the policy.  According to the conditions of the policy, the benefits available is vesting benefit or death benefit.  Upon survival of the life assured to the vesting date of this benefit, risk cover ceases and the unit fund value plus an additional 50% of the original annualized regular premium becomes available to secure pension benefit.  The attempt of the complainant is to get back the money from the opposite parties by avoiding the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant after having paid the first premium, failed to pay subsequent premiums.  According to the conditions of the policy, if any premiums remains unpaid 15 days after the due date, the policy will be automatically surrendered or become paid up.  If premium remains unpaid during the first 3 years of the policy, the policy will lapse and be automatically surrendered.  A surrender charge as specified in the schedule of charges will be deducted by cancellation of units.  The amount payable on surrender will be unit fund value less the surrender charge as specified in the schedule of charges.  According to the conditions of the policy, before the payment of the premium due on the first policy anniversary, the surrender charge is 100% of the fund value.  Since the complainant failed to remit  the premium due on the first policy anniversary, the surrender charge is 100% of the fund value and no amount is payable to the complainant.  There has been no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant is not entitled to any amount as stated in the complaint.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

Opposite parties 1-4 filed an application as IA 67/2015 to hear the maintainability  as a preliminary issue.  IA was allowed and the issue of maintainability was heard.  The counsel for the opposite parties submits that the policy taken by the complainant is a unit linked policy and is a speculative investment and is a speculative gain.  Hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act,  and the complaint is not  maintainable before the Forum.

The law is well settled that unit linked  policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such the policy holder of such policies are not consumers and the disputes relating to such policies are not sustainable before the consumer Forum. Our National Commission in Ram Lal  Aggarwalla Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd in (2013(2)CPR 389 (NC) has held that the policy being an unit linked policy and is dependent on the market volatility and value may go up or may come down depending upon the market condition.  The investment made by the complainant was to gain profit.  Hence it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties.  The money invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment and the matter does not come under Consumer Protection  Act.  On this ground the  complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings of our Apex Courts we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as such it is dismissed being devoid of merits.  Issue is answered accordingly.    Hence the complaint is dismissed without costs. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th  day of June, 2016.

                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                   Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                         Suma. K.P

                                                                    Member

                                                                         Sd/-

                                                         V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                                                    Member