Kerala

StateCommission

CC/13/22

DHARMENDRA MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG INSURANCE CO.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD RAJKUMAR

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

     KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER   DISPUTES    REDRESSAL

                     COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

CC.No.22/13

JUDGMENT DATED:31.07.2015

 

PRESENT:

JUSTICE. SHRI. P.Q.BARKATHALI                         : PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

 

Mr. Dharmendra Mittal,

14 B Lower West Klassik Benchmark,                                                                        

Kamannhalli,

Off Bannargata  Road,                                                      : COMPLAINANT

Bangalore.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Vinod Rajkumar)

 

            Vs.

 

1. Tata AIG Life Insurance company Limited,

Delhi-B Wing, 2^nd Floor, Orchard Avenue,

Hiranandani Business Park,

Powai, Mumbai-400 076.

                                                                                                : OPPOSITE PARTIES

2. Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited.

2^nd floor, S.L.Plaza, Palarivattom,

Edappally South Village, Kochi-682 025.

 

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

 

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for a direction directing the opposite parties, Insurance Company to cancel the policies issued to the complainant and refund the premium amount and for a compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and a cost of Rs.30,000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant joined in four insurance policies issued by the opposite parties. He paid 3 annual premiums.  Thereafter he noticed that some corrections were made in the policies which were alleged to be on behalf of him.  His signature has been forged in the policies.  Therefore he claimed for cancellation of the policies, refund of the amount and claiming compensation totaling to Rs.72 lakhs.

3.      The opposite parties are Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited, Delhi and its branch office at Kochi. They in their version contended thus:-

It is admitted that complainant had joined in the 3 policies issued by the opposite parties.  The policies are unit linked policy and are a speculative investment for speculative gain.  Therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  It is false to say that signature of the complainant has been forged in the policies.  Complainant has paid only three instalments and two further instalments are due.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      After filing the proof affidavit of the complainant opposite party filed I.A.508/14 raising the question of maintainability of the complaint to decide it as a preliminary issue.  Therefore the question of maintainability of the complaint is decided as a preliminary issue.  National Commission in Ramlal  Agarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013 (2) CPR 389 ( NC) that if the money of the complainant can be invested in share market for speculative gain, the matter does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Copies of the policies produced along with the complainant shows that the policies are unit linked policy for speculative gain.  Therefore in the light of the principles laid down in the above decision complaint is not maintainable.  Consequently I.A.508/14 filed by the opposite parties is allowed and it is found that complaint is not maintainable.

In the result complaint is dismissed as found not maintainable.

 

JUSTICE  P.Q.BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT

VL.

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER