Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/345

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

P K KUNHIMOHAMMED - Opp.Party(s)

HARITHA SV

22 Jul 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NOs.345/14 & 14/15

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED:22.07.2015

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

APPEAL NO.345/14

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Appa Saheb Maratta Marge,                                            : APPELLANT                    

Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400-025.

 

(By Adv: Sri.R.Santhosh & Haritha.V)

 

            Vs.

 

P.K. Kunhimohammed,

Karuparamba House,

Patterkadavu Post,                                                            : RESPONDENT

Malappuram-676 519.

 

(By Adv:Sri.Abdul Karim)

 

APPEAL NO.14/15

P.K. Kunhimohammed,

Karuparamba House,

Patterkadavu Post, Malappuram,                                   : APPELLANT

Eranad Taluk, Malappuram Dist.

 

(By Adv:Sri.Abdul Karim)

 

            Vs.

 

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Appa Saheb Maratta Marge,                                            : RESPONDENT                

Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400-025.

 

(By Adv: Sri.R.Santhosh & Haritha.V)

 

COMMON JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

Both these appeals arise out of the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram in CC.170/12 dated, April 28, 2014.  Appeal 345/14 is filed by the opposite party, while Appeal.14/15 is filed by the complainant.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant joined in a policy issued by the opposite party on 3.11.2008 in the name of his son Shameem Jabir.  The agent of the opposite party made him believe that if complainant deposits 3 annual instalments of Rs.60,552/- each.  The complainant can withdraw the total amount, if he chooses.  Complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.1,81,566/-.  After 3 years of the opposite party repaid only Rs.1,11,776.61.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming the balance amount and compensation.

3.      The opposite party is ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai. They in their version contended that Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that on 6.7.2012 complainant requested to surrender the policy and the surrender value of the policy Rs.1,11,776.61 is credited to the account of the complainant through NFT transaction and that therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and he produced Ext.A1 policy certificate and on the side of the opposite party Exts.B1 to B6 were marked before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and directed them to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.  Opposite party has filed the Appeal.345/14 challenging the said order of the Forum.  Complainant filed the Appeal.14/15 claiming the balance amount.

5.      Heard the counsel for both the parties.

6.      Following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

7.      Ext.B1 shows that it is a unit linked policy.  The National Commission in Ramlal Agarwala Vs. Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Limited ( Revision Petition.658/12) had held that if the money of the complainant had been invested in share market for speculative gain, the matter does not come under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  In the present case the policy is a unit linked policy for speculative gain as seen from Ext.B1.  Therefore in the light of the principles laid down in the above decision we hold that complaint is not maintainable.  It follows that appeal filed by the opposite party Appeal.345/14 has to be allowed and the complaint has to be dismissed.  Consequently Appeal.14/15 filed by the complainant has to be dismissed.

In the result Appeal.345/14 is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum allowing the complaint in part in set aside and the complaint is dismissed as found not maintainable.  Appeal.14/15 filed by the complainant is dismissed.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.