Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/681

THE MANAGER, SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAJU VARKEY - Opp.Party(s)

V.S. PRADEEP

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 681/13

JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2016

 

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

 

The Manager,

SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

IInd floor, Padikkara Apartments,

Kattappana P.O, Idukki District,                                     : APPELLANT

R/by Processing Centre Head,

SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Trivandrum.

                                                           

(By Adv: Sri. V.S. Pradeep)

 

            Vs.

 

1. Saju Varkey,

Mathirappillil House,

Perumthotty P.O, Thoppramkudy,

Idukki District, PIN-685 609.     

 

2. Shyni Mohandas,

Kochuparambil House,

Perumthotty P.O, Thoppramkudy,                                 : RESPONDENTS

Idukki District, PIN-685 609.  

 

3. The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Kattappana Branch,

Kattappana P.O, Idukki District,

PIN-685 508.  

 

JUDGMENT

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the 3^rd opposite party in CC.128/13 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki challenging the order of the Forum dated, September 09, 2013, directing the 2^nd opposite party to  pay to the complainant Rs.9193/- with interest and a cost of Rs.1500/-.

 

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant joined in a policy of the 2^nd opposite party as assured by opposite parties 1 and 3.  Complainant paid Rs.12,000/- as annual premium for 3 years.  The first opposite party promised that if the complainant pays premium for 3 years he will get double the premium amount.  After completion of 3 years complainant surrendered the policy 2^nd opposite party issued cheque for Rs.26,807/-.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint for getting back the balance premium amount and compensation.

3.      First opposite party Mrs. Shyni Mohandas, Idukki District in her version contended thus before the Forum.  First opposite party is the agent of the 2^nd opposite party.  Complainant joined in a Unit Plus Child Regular Premium Policy of the 2^nd opposite party.  It is not correct to say that 1^st opposite party assured double the premium amount after 3 years.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed with cost. 

4.      Second opposite party is the Manager, SBI Life Insurance Limited, Idukki District.  He in his version contended thus before the Forum.  It is true that opposite party joined in a Unit Plus Child Regular Premium Policy in the name of the complainant on December 19, 2009.  Complainant paid 3 annual premiums and that the surrendered policy on February 26, 2013. Cheque for the surrender value of Rs.26,807/- was issued to the complainant.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

5.      Third opposite party remained absent before the Forum.

6.      On the side of the complainant, Ext.P1 to P3 were marked and on the side of the 1^st opposite party Exts.R1 to R5 were marked.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that complainant is entitled to the balance amount of premium paid Rs.9,193/-.  Forum directed the 2^nd opposite party to disburse the amount along with a cost of Rs.1500/-.  Second opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

7.      Heard both the counsels.

8.      The counsel for the appellant mainly argued that being a unit linked policy complaint will not lie before the Forum. 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.  It follows that complaint is not maintainable.

In the result appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum directing the 2^nd opposite party to pay the amount is setaside.  Complaint is dismissed as found not maintainable.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI       :  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.