Kerala

StateCommission

RP/15/54

THE BRANCH MANAGER HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMAKRISHNAN KADAN - Opp.Party(s)

SAJI ISSAC

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION.54/15

 

JUDGMENT DATED: 24.02.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

1. The Branch Manager,

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

2^nd floor, Highway Arcade,                                              

T.K. Junction, Thalassery Road,

Kannur-670 012.                                                                 : REVISION

PETITIONERS

 

2. Senior Vice President (Operations),

Trade Star, 2^nd  floor, A Wing,

Andheri East Mumbai-400 059.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Saji Isaac K.J)

 

            Vs.

Ramakrishnan Kadan,

Arunam, Near Puthiyathery Mandapam,                      : RESPONDENT

Chirakkal P.O, Kannur.

 

(By Adv: Sri.N.G. Mahesh)

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

This is Revision Petition filed by the opposite party in CC.337/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur challenging the order of the Forum dated April 23, 2014 in I.A.215/14 holding that complaint is maintainable.

2.      Complainant filed the complaint before the Forum claiming refund of the premium amount paid by him in the insurance policy of the opposite parties.  

3.      First opposite party is the Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Kannur and 2^nd opposite party is its Senior Vice President.  They disputed the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum.  They filed I.A.215/14 to decide the question of maintainability first.  The Forum by the impugned order found that complaint is maintainable and dismissed the I.A.  The opposite parties have now come up in revision challenging the said order of the Forum.

4.      Both the counsels were heard.

5.      It is admitted that the policy in question is a unit linked policy for speculative gain.  National Commission in Ramlal Agarwala Vs. Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC) has found that policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share market, which is for speculative gain complaint does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision we hold that complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the Act.  That being so the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In the result revision petition is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum dismissing I.A.215/14 is set aside. The said I.A. is allowed. Complaint is found not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.  Complainant can approach other appropriate Fora like Permanent Lok Adalath to redress his grievance.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

 

VL.