Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The fact of the Complaint Case in brief is that Complainant took two Insurance Plan namely Met Smart Life Unit Linked Life Insurance Plan being No. 20336619 & 20356604 on 09.06.2010 & paid Rs. 30 lakhs in total.
As per assurance given by agent, after lapse of 3 years, Complainant claimed the policy amount. Over the matter, some disputes arose between the parties. Finally OP refunded Rs. 30 lakhs on 26.10.2015. Hence, Complainant filed the instant case claiming interest, compensation and cost.
Heard the submission of both sides over the matter. Ld. Advocate of the OP raised several objections i.e., maintainability, barred by limitation etc.
It appears from record that the Petitioner remitted premium for 3 years and failed to pay subsequent premiums which resultantly moved the policy to ‘Non-forfeiture status’ and is entitled to get only ‘surrender value’.
Now the crux of the question is:-
- Whether OP is liable for “Deficiency of services”
- Whether claim of Complainant is admissible or not?
It appears from record that Complainant had surrendered the policy and got the money prematurely after deduction of mortality charges and other charges as per the terms of the policy. The investment made by the Complainant was to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the Complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties. It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwalla v. Bajaj Life Insurance Co. Ltd., III(2013)CPJ203(NC) 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.
Regarding ‘Deficiency in Service’ the observation of the Apex Court is as follows:-
Ravneet Singh Bagga- Vs- M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 2000 (1) SCC 66
“Deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract”.
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (GLADA) –Vs-Vidya Chetal SLP© No 4272 of 2015
“Determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a ‘deficiency in service’, can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Act.”
In this particular case ‘Deficiency in Service’ is not proved as required.
Hence, the instant Complaint Case is liable to be dismissed.
