Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The instant Appeal is borne out of the Complaint Case No. CC/221/2017 which has been allowed by the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata—II (Central) vide its order dated 12.04.2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, OP/Insurance Company filed this Appeal.
The Complainant’s main case is that Complainant was convinced by the OPs men to sign and issue four cheques one of Rs. 99,999/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- for two single premium policies, one for the Complainant No. 1 and other for complainant No. 2. Long after verification made by the Complainant, Complainant received two policies where they found all the descriptions made by the OP are fake and untrue and the said policy premiums have to be paid up to eighteen years which is an impossible event. OP illegally by misrepresentation and by false inducement and unfair trade practice compelled the complainant to sign the proposal form and for that he has suffered irreparable loss.
On the other hand, OP3’s main case is that after receipt of duly filled up and signed cheque from the Complainant, OP3 forwarded the same to the concerned Insurance Company and, thereafter further steps are taken by the Insurance Company/OPs 1 and 2 regarding issuance of policy and sending of original documents to the Complainant. OPs 1 and 2 received the application and informed the Complainant about the option of submitting the policies so issued within the free-look period but Complainants never approached the OPs 1 and 2 for cancellation of the policies.
On hearing both sides, Ld. DCDRC allowed the same treating the same is of “Mis-Selling”.
Heard both sides over the matter at length and perused the relevant documents etc.
It appears from record that the Complainant Nos. 1 and 2 remitted single premium of two policies amounting to Rs. 5,99,999/- and prayed for cancellation. Complainant got the policy for investment purpose in the equity market knowingly or unknowingly under Unit Linked Insurance Plan (ULIP)
Now the crux of the question is:-
- Whether OP is liable for “Deficiency of Services”
- Whether claim of Complainant is admissible or not?
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.
Considering the entire panorama Complainants are entitled to get the ‘Surrender Value’ under this plan subject to deduction of mortality charge and other charges as per the terms of the policy.
Thus the instant Appeal is allowed in part and the order dated 12.04.2018 is hereby set aside.
