Order No. 13 dt. 13/06/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was approached by the representative of o.ps. that the complainant will have to pay for the policy purchased by him and the payment will be one time payment and does not require yearly payment time to time. The complainant being satisfied with the said approach of the representative of o.ps. paid a premium of Rs.1,03,090/- for the said life insurance policy. After receiving the policy the complainant found that the policy is for 5 years and the complainant will have to pay Rs.1,03,090/- for 5 years annually. The complainant raised his objection and prayed for cancellation of the policy, but no action was taken for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the amount of Rs.1,03,090/- along with compensation and litigation cost.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the policy in question is a market linked policy and law is now well settled that such policy is speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such, the policy holders of such policy are not consumers and disputes relating to such policy are not sustainable before a Consumer Forum. It was further stated that as per the terms of the policy and the guideline of IRDA the complainant ought to have returned the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the said policy but the complainant did not do so and after the lapse of one year he expressed for cancellation of the policy. Since the case is not maintainable and during the free look period the complainant did not avail of his option for cancellation of the policy, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant obtained the policy from the o.ps.
- Whether there was any misunderstanding made between the complainant and the agent for which the complainant was deceived by o.ps.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant was informed by the representative of o.ps. that the policy purchased by the complainant would be one time payment of Rs.1,03,090/- and after receiving the policy the complainant found that the policy was made for 5 years and the payment isto be made by the complainant for 5 years to the tune of Rs.1,03,090/- in each year. The complainant after coming to know of the said fact expressed his desire for cancellation of the policy. Since o.ps. did not accept the request of the complainant, the complainant had to file this case praying for refund of the amount as well as other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the policy was market linked policy and this case does not fall within the C.P. Act and ld. lawyer in support of his contention cited a ruling as reported in Ramlal Agarwal vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. 2013(2) CPR 389 (NC) and in the said judgment it was specifically stated that the policy in question is a market linked policy and such policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such, the policy holders of such policy are not consumers and disputes relating to such policy are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum. Apart from the said fact ld. lawyer emphasized that as per IRDA guideline the complainant could have availed of the opportunity to cancel the policy within the free look period i.e. after receiving the policy within the said period the complainant could have cancelled the policy and would have received the amount. But the complainant did not avail of that opportunity and expressed his desire for cancellation of the policy after the lapse of one year from the date of receipt of the policy. In view of such fact the case is not maintainable and the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,03,090/- and the policy was purchased from o.ps. and the policy was unit linked and the complainant after knowing the fate of the said policy invested the said amount. After receiving the policy the complainant had the opportunity to cancel t he policy within free look period but he did not take any action. After the lapse of one year he raised his voice for cancellation of the policy. The complainant gave blame upon the representative of o.ps. but the representative of o.ps. not only acts for the o.ps. but also acts on behalf of the policy holders. Therefore, the complainant was misled by the representative of o.ps. cannot be accepted. Apart from the said fact the complainant had the option to cancel the policy within free look period but he did not avail of that opportunity. Since the complainant has not come with clean hands and as per IRDA guideline the request of the complainant was not accepted by o.ps. thereby we hold that the o.ps. have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was adopted by them. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.121/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
