Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/350

the manager sbi life insurance co ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

sonia rajeev - Opp.Party(s)

vs pradeep

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO 350/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2017

(Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.173/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kannur)

 

PRESENT:

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR                  :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                :        MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

          1.      Manager,

          SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

          1^st Floor, Ennes Enclave,

          Near Ashoka Hospital,

          Kannur – 670002.

 

2.      SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

          Corporate Office Ground & II Floor,

          Turner Morrison Building,

          G.N. Vaidaya Marg,

          Mumbai – 23.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. V.S. Pradeep)

 

                                                                                      Vs.

 

RESPONDENT

 

          Sonia Rajeev,

          Vayanayi House, Pallikunnu. P.O.,

          Kannur – 670004.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI.V.V. JOSE          :        MEMBER

          This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of District Forum, Kannur, in CC No.173/2013 dated 09/04/2015 directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.52,243/- along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

          2.      The facts of the case is as follows:

          Complainant joined in an insurance scheme of the opposite parties at the instance of their agent Smt. Mangala Shenoy.  She paid Rs.2,98,800/- till 07/12/2012.  The agent, at the time of joining, made the complainant to believe that the policy offered was for three years.  When she approached for closure, the opposite parties paid only Rs.2,46,557/-.  On account of the same she suffered great mental agony and losses.  Hence this complaint.

          3.      The opposite parties appeared against notice and filed their version.  They denied all allegations.  According to them the policy given was a unit linked policy for speculative gain.  So is not maintainable and barred by limitation.  The policy was for 15 years and basic sum assured was for Rs.4,98,000/- in maturity.  As there is no contractual obligation to be the fulfilled,  prayed for a dismissal.

          4.      The Forum below framed three issues for consideration based on the contentions and pleadings.

          5.      Is there any deficiency of service which entitles the complainant for any relief.  If so the relief and costs.

          6.      The evidence in the above CC consists of oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 which is marked.  Opposite parties produced some documents Exts. B1 to B3 only.  The complainant as PW1 stated that proposal form was supplied at the time of payment of first premium i.e. Ext. B1, which does not contain the nature and character of the policy.  The agent made the complaint to believe that after three years she can avail the insured sum from the opposite parties.  The original policy was handed over only after the policy became active in performance.  Nowadays the new generation companies are making so many financial offers to attract consumers.  And also they will be hiding the relevant clauses of the offers.  Here also the agent of the opposite parties made so many offers in a fanciful manner to the complainant.  B1 proposal form is also seen incomplete about the nature and character of the policy.  According to the forum below the evidence adduced by the complainant is unchallenged by the opposite parties.  There is no contrary evidence also.  The opposite parties or their agent never approached the complainant with clean hands.  The only intention was to canvas a customer at any cost and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  According to the forum the probable interest portion can be adjusted with the risk coverage.  Even then the complainant has got every right to get back the amounts deposited by her.

          7.      Hence the forum directed to pay back the balance amount Rs.52,243/- with compensation and cost.

          8.      Aggrieved by the above order the opposite parties preferred this appeal on various grounds.  The respondent / complainant remained absent in the appeal stage.

          9.      Heard the counsel of the appellant.

          It is seen from records that the policy availed by the complainant is a unit linked policy.  The counsel for the appellants argued that as the policy in dispute is a unit linked policy, forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  There is force in the above contentions.  National Commission in Ramlal Agarwal Vs. Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 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, complainan t does not came within the preview 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 said complaint and we allow the appeal.  Therefore the impugned order of the forum and finding that appellant has done deficiency of service is set aside.  But the appeal is allowed on the ground that Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed. Setting aside the order of lower forum. The complainant can approach other appropriate fora like permanent Lok Adalath to redress her grievance.

          It is hereby made clear that findings of the lower forum in the impugned order is not binding on the appellant.

 

V.V. JOSE                    : MEMBER

 

0CHANDRADAS NADAR    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO:  350/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2017

 

 

                                                                                                                               

 

                                                                                                                                nb