Complaint No.486-14          Sarabjit Singh     Vs.   PNB Metlife India

Present: For the Complainant: In Person.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Sanjay Kapoor, Advocate.

During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the policy bearing No.00715556 dated 28.11.2011 obtained by the complainant is Unit Linked Insurance Policy. In this regard, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties relied upon the documents produced and proved on record by the Opposite Parties i.e. proposal form Ex.OP1 in which the complainant himself has opted the investment of his entire premium amount in Moderator i.e. in the form of moderator shares in open market. In the declaration for Unit Linked Products signed by the complainant Ex.OP2, the complainant has admitted that  he fully understood that investment in this product is subject to market risks and the actual rate of return may be higher or lower than what has been illustrated. Same fact has been mentioned in Benefit Illustration Ex.OP3 where the complainant has directed the Opposite Parties for investment of his funds in open market in the form of shares i.e. Moderator 100%. In risk profiler Ex.OP4, it has been admitted by the complainant that earnings will increase or outpace inflation. In the terms and conditions of the policy document Ex.OP5, the word ‘Moderator’ has been explained in clause 5 (C) that Moderator Investment Objective to generate regular income by investing in high investment grade Fixed Income Securities and to generate capital appreciation by investing a limited portion in equities. So, all these documents fully prove that the policy obtained by the complainant is United Linked Insurance Policy and the complainant himself has opted to invest his entire premium amount 100%  in the moderator share in the open market in order to earn profit.  It has been held by  Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and others decided on 23.04.2013 that  where the investment made by the petitioner/ complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policies  to gain the profit, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party. Hon’ble State Commission, Orisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in case Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited have held that the money of the petitioner/ complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter  does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission, dismissed the appeal. Similar are the facts of the present case as the complainant has directed the Opposite Party to invest his amount of premium in the share market to gain profit. Investment in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act.

Resultantly, we hold that the present complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties, as such, the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate court/ authority  having proper jurisdiction. Both the parties are left to bear their own costs.   Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 05-03-2015.                                                                                                                                                                   hrg