O R D E R

By  Sri.C.T.Sabu, President

          The case of the complainant is that he had invested an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the 1^st opposite party in October 2013 he had signed the policy documents to the 1^st opposite party with cheque of Rs.2,00000/-.  At the time of taking the policy he had informed the opposite party that he prefers single investment system and his inability to pay the premium continuously as he is not permanently employed.  Then in 2014 October the opposite party  issued a letter requesting to pay  the next instalment.  Then he enquired with the 2^nd opposite party and then only he came to know that 2^nd opposite party took a different policy for getting maximum commission.  If the 2^nd opposite party ought to have revealed the details of the policy the complainant could not have joined the policy.    There is a deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties and so complainant is entitled for compensation and cost.

          2. On receiving complaint, notice issued to opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party filed version denying the  allegations in the complaint.  According to the 1^st opposite party, they have not given any assurance regarding the returns under the policy.  The returns are mentioned in the policy, the complainant has no case that the policy details were not furnished to him.  The proposal form was for SBI Life Shubh Nivesh policy with an initial proposal deposit of Rs.1,99,928/- with yearly mode of premium payment for a term of 5 years and basic sum assured of Rs.8,75,000/-.  The policy document was handed over to complainant, more over an officer from the 1^st opposite party  had by telephone given the full description of the terms and condition of the policy still the complainant did not cancel the policy.  The said product is approved y IRDA and the SBI life does not have the mandate to violate the product features and cannot act in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  The opposite party had replied stating all the true facts to the letters and notices issued by the complainant.  Moreover the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant had joined the policy for monetary gain and so will not come under purview of Consumer Protection Act.  Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.  The 2^nd opposite party absent  and set exparte.

          3. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration are that :

1)Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

2)If yes, whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice?

3)Cost and reliefs?

          4.Complainanta filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail.  He has also produced one document, which is marked as Ext.P1.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit denying the averments made in the complaint in tune with  the version filed by them.  They produced two documents and marked as Exts.R1 and R2.

          5. We have gone through the affidavit.  By critically examined the documents produced and proof affidavit of both parties besides  argument notes, we are convinced that the complainant has failed to make out any cause of action against the opposite parties.  The complainant is a qualified person and so it is hard to believe that he had signed those documents without verifying the contents of the documents.  The proposal form and the policy document produced and marked from the side of the opposite party as Exts.R1 and R2 would clearly shows that the complainant had opted for 5 year payment scheme and plan.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.  There is no willful latches or deficiency from the side of the opposite party.  Moreover he had also enjoyed the insurance coverage for the premium period. Even after notice issued by the opposite party, the complainant failed to pay the premium and hence the policy lapsed.  Moreover the recent decisions of apex court and Hon’ble National Commission held that the investment made by  the petitioner/complainant was to gain profit hence it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore the petitioner/complainant is not  a consumer under the opposite parties.  The State Commission Odisha first appeal No.162/2010 in the case of Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo vs.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. have held that  the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market has no doubt  as speculative  gain and accordingly the State Commission dismissed  the appeal.

          6. In view of the aforesaid discussions and  findings, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act and as such it is dismissed being devoid merit.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the  15^th day  of  January 2021.

Sd/-                      Sd/-                                          Sd/-

Sreeja.S                Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair         C.T.Sabu

Member                Member                                  President

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

 Ext.P1 Policy document

Opposite Party’s Exhibits

Ext.R1 Copy of Proposal form

Ext.R2 Copy of policy documents

                                                                                           Id/-

                                                                                       President