Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/55/2015

Ranjit kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pardip Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

In person

04 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :  55 of 26.05.2015

Date of Decision                     : 04.05.2016

Ranjit Kaur W/o Bahadur Singh Resident of Village Dudhala, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.                                                                                                  …Complainant

Versus

1. Pardip Kumar S/o Sham Lal R/o VPO Jadla, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Agent Code – AM794 of M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Company.
2. Harash Kumar, DO of M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, Branch at Nawanshahr, Nehru Gate (SBS Nagar).
3. M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, Branch at Nawanshahr, Nehru Gate (SBS Nagar), through Manager.

                                                                             …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant           :         In person.

For OP-1                        :         Ex parte

For OP2&3                             :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

ORDER

                   SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Smt.Ranjit Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs.)  praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To direct the OPs to pay to complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest upto 2014.

ii)      To pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and  physical harassment suffered by her.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that she is having Birla Sun Life Insurance Policy bearing No.003157040, issued on 27.07.2009. She had paid regular premium either directly or through agent i.e. O.P. No.1. The Ops had given her receipts of payment of the premium amount up to 19.02.2011.  But after that she did not receive the receipt of payment made by her to the O.P. No.1. She approached the concerned officials of M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Company on 15.1.2015 and explained the whole story but no action was taken by the Insurance Company.  She when again for the second time approached the Insurance Company then official of the company disclosed that her policy had already been closed, but the O.Ps did not informed her regarding closing of the policy in question.  It is further stated that in total she had paid a sum of Rs.600,00/-  i.e. a sum of Rs.12000/- per annum for five years upto the year 2014 but she got receipts regarding the payment of the premium amount only upto the year 2011.

3.       None having put in appearance, inspite of issuance of notice, the O.P. No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.12.2015.

4.       On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. No.2&3, have filed joint written version by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant against the O.Ps. to file the present complaint; that the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the Hon’ble Forum; that complaint is not maintainable ; that no cause of action has arisen in favour of complainant against answering OPs to file the present complaint; that complainant created a false story in her complaint to misled this Forum by concocting and distorting the facts.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant submitted the proposal form on 23.7.2009 and the policy in question i.e. BSLI Dream Plan and policy bearing No.003157040 was issued to her on 27.07.2009.  The complainant had paid  a sum of Rs.30,16.95 i.e. five semi annual installments upto July, 2011 to opposite party No.3.  It is denied that the complainant had paid the premium to opposite party No.1 upto March 2014.  Neither, the agent nor the advisor of the OPs are legally entitled to collect the premium in cash from the policy holders. No complaint has been made by her to answering OPs in this regard.  It is further stated that complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 30,016.95/- i.e. 5 semi annual installments upto 2011 to OPs  and the policy was lapsed in February 2012 due to non-payment of the renewal premium for the subsequent years. Complainant after lapse of policy, not entitled to seek refund of the premium and she is only entitled for fund value as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with special costs.

 5.      On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, photocopies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Aakriti Manocha, Ex.RW1/A along with photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence.

6.       The complainant did not appear before this Forum to argue the matter from the last three dates of hearing.  Even on 28.04.2016, she has not turned up to argue the matter.  We have heard arguments put forth by the learned counsel for OP No.2&3 on the application dated 15.01.2016 filed by OP No.2&3 for dismissal of the complaint and also on the main complaint case.  We have also gone through the record of the file carefully. 

7.       The learned counsel or OP No.2&3 submitted that the dispute in the present complaint is related to the Unit Linked Policy.  The jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is excluded in the cases pertaining to Unit Linked Policy.  In case of Ram Lal Aggrwala Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company and other III (2013) CPJ 203 (NC) the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the policy having being taken for investment of premium in the share market which is speculative transaction and the complainant does not come within the purview of consumer as per the Act.  He further submitted that the OPs No.2&3 have already filed an application for dismissal of the complaint, which is still pending before this Forum.

8.       In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case Ram Lal Aggarwala (Supra), the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed with no orders as to the costs.  The application dated 15.01.2016 filed for dismissal of complaint also stands dismissed being infractuous.

9.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 04.05.2016                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                                     MEMBER