Kerala

StateCommission

RP/15/61

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

Versus

T SANKARANKUTTY - Opp.Party(s)

SAJI ISSAC

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION.61/15

ORDER DATED:06.03.2017

 PRESENT: 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

The Manager, HDFC Standard,

Life Insurance Company Ltd.                                         : REVISION PETITIONER

Kannur.

 

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

 

            Vs.

T. Sankarankutty, S/o Velayudan Nair,

Thattat House, South Bazar,

Kannur-670 002.                                                                 : RESPONDENT

 

(By Adv: Sri. Rajan Nellooran)

ORDER

 

HON.JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q.BARKATHALI  :  PRESIDENT

 

This is a revision petition filed by the opposite party in CC.92/13 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 28, 2015 in I.A.65/15 dismissing the I.A finding that complaint is maintainable.

2.      Complainant filed the complaint claiming the amount due under the insurance policy joined by the complainant with the opposite party.  His allegation is that without knowing the exact nature of the policy he joined the policy and that when he claimed the amount therein the opposite party refused.

3.      Opposite party is the Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, Kannur.  They admitted the policy in the name of the complainant which is a unit linked pension plan for a term of 5 years.  They further contended that complaint is not maintainable as the policy is a unit linked policy.

4.      Raising the question of maintainability opposite party filed the I.A, Forum dismissed the I.A finding that the complaint is maintainable.  Opposite party has now come up in revision challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      It is admitted that policy in question is a unit linked pension policy. 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.  Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI  :  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

 

VL.