THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 394-12
Date of Institution : 8.6.2012
Date of Decision : 9.2.2015
Paramjit Kaur W/o Gurdip Singh R/o VPO Dadupura, Majitha ,Amritsar
.....Complainant
Vs.
Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited having its registered and corporate office at Delphi 8, Wing, 5th and 6th Floor, Peninsula Towers, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 service through its Local Office at Distt. Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, B-Block, Amritsar through its branch Manager/Principal Officer
.....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh, Adv
For the opposite parties : Sh. Mohan Arora,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 During the course of proceedings , it has been pointed out by the counsel for the opposite party that all the insurance policies obtained by the complainant which are the subject matter in dispute in the present complaint, are unit linked policies as is evident from the proposal/application forms Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-4 in which the complainant herself has opted for investment of her entire premium amount in open market in the form of shares i.e. in Speculative business to earn profit. Counsel for
-2-
the complainant could not rebut this proposition raised by the counsel for the opposite party. We have gone through all the aforesaid proposal/application forms on the basis of which the insurance policies were issued by the opposite party to the complainant, from the perusal of which it stands proved on record that all the Life Insurance Policies in question taken by the complainant from the opposite party which are the subject matter of dispute in this case, are unit linked policies in which the complainant herself has opted for investment of her entire premium amount in open market in the form of shares i.e. in speculative business to earn profit/speculative gain, hence for commercial purpose. As such, the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd and another in Revision Petition No. 658 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and Others decided on 23.04.2013 that where the investment made by the petitioner/complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policies to gain profit, it was invested for commercial purposes and therefore, the petitioner/complainant is not a 'consumer' of the opposite party. Hon'ble State Commission, Orisha in First Appeal No. 162 of 2010 in case Smt.Abanti Kumari Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited has held that the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the Hon'ble State Commission, dismissed the appeal.
Consequently, we hold that present complaint is not maintainable and as such the same is hereby returned to the complainant with liberty to file the case before the appropriate court/Authority/Forum. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders be
-3-
furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
9.02.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member
