Order No. 17 dt. 12/10/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a policy vide no.U019797715 dated 22.08.2008 having sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/-. After purchase of the policy the complainant paid the annual premium amounting to Rs.20,000/- for consecutive three years and thereafter due to various reasons he failed to continue the same. As per the terms and conditions of the policy as was disclosed by the agent that if the policy holder fails to continue the yearly premium after payment of three consecutive premium, the company shall be bound to refund the amount paid by the policy holder subject to deductions of some amount in respect of the total amount paid by the policy holder. The complainant accordingly prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.60,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
O.p. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the case is not maintainable since the complainant failed to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o,.p. The complainant opted for Tata AIA Life Invest Assure II plan and the policy no. U019797715 dated 22.08.2008 having sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/-. The policy documents were duly received by the complainant on 17.08.2008. The complainant raised a complaint vide email dated 31.07.2013 and was duly replied by o.p. vide email dated 26.08.2013 wherein issued raised by the complainant were addressed. The complainant opted for a unit linked policy and the said policy is speculative in nature and the same is taken for investment purpose and as such the policy holder of such policies are not consumer and the case is not sustainable. It was further stated that the complainant surrendered the policy and got the money therefore the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the case is to be dismissed.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:-
- Whether the complainant obtained the unit linked policy?
- Whether the complainant discontinued the policy after payment of the three annual premium?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the entire amount paid by him?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a policy vide no.U019797715 dated 22.08.2008 having sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/-. After purchase of the policy the complainant paid the annual premium amounting to Rs.20,000/- for consecutive three years and thereafter due to various reasons he failed to continue the same. As per the terms and conditions of the policy as was disclosed by the agent that if the policy holder fails to continue the yearly premium after payment of three consecutive premium, the company shall be bound to refund the amount paid by the policy holder subject to deductions of some amount in respect of the total amount paid by the policy holder. The complainant accordingly prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.60,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. argued that the case is not maintainable since the complainant failed to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o,.p. The complainant opted for Tata AIA Life Invest Assure II plan and the policy no. U019797715 dated 22.08.2008 having sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/-. The policy documents were duly received by the complainant on 17.08.2008. The complainant raised a complaint vide email dated 31.07.2013 and was duly replied by o.p. vide email dated 26.08.2013 wherein issued raised by the complainant were addressed. The complainant opted for a unit link policy and the said policy is speculative in nature and the same is taken for investment purpose and as such the policy holder of such policies are not consumer and the case is not sustainable.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for policy from the o.p. The policy was issued to the complainant along with the policy the terms and conditions of the policy. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant paid the annual premium for three years @ Rs.20,000/- per annum i.e. the complainant in total paid an amount of Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter he discontinued the policy. It appears from the record that the policy started in the year 2008 and he continued to pay till the year 2010 and the policy continued till the year 2011. Subsequently for non-payment of the premium the policy lapsed. It is also admitted fact that in policy document itself it was mentioned that the policy was unit linked and the investment was subject to market risk. The complainant knowing fully well regarding the said fact claimed the total amount paid by him which is not at all feasible one. The complainant filed this case after the statutory period of 2 years and without filing any application u/s 24(A) of C.P. Act we hold that the case is barred by limitation and the transaction was a speculative in nature as per the judgement reported in III (213) CPJ 203 (NC) wherein it was held that when the policy in question is an unit (market) linked policy and law is now well settled that such 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 disputes relating to such policies are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum. In view of such facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no. 240 of 2015 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
