1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Ops and their agent approached the complainant to propose for a policy floated by them namely “Capital Unit Gain Size One” and gave assurance that one time deposit will be double within 5 years and there will be a life coverage risk of Rs.5.00 lacs for 3 years. Accordingly the complainant deposited yearly premium of Rs.50, 000/- under the said policy for three consecutive years vide Policy No.0049483690 and also similarly deposited Rs.10, 000/- under another policy namely “New Unit Gain” vide Policy No.0093840210 for three consecutive years also commencing from 2007 & 2008 respectively. It is submitted that when the complainant was in need and wanted to surrender the policies on 14.1.2014, the Ops returned Rs.1, 47,305/- against the deposit of Rs.1, 50,000/- under Capital Unit Gain Size One policy and also the Ops returned Rs.26, 973/- against the deposit of Rs.30, 000/- under New Unit Gain policy. It is submitted that the Ops had promised for double amount on such deposits and hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.1, 87,722/- from the Ops pending to be paid under the two policies. Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.1, 87,722/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.60, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the Policy No.49483690 which has a policy paying term of 20 years issued in the year, 2007 and similarly, Policy No.93840210 with policy paying term of 20 years issued in the year, 2008 in favour of the complainant and the regular premium was Rs.50, 000/- and Rs.10, 000/- respectively under the policies. It is contended that the complainant did not pay any premium after 3 years and during January, 2014 requested for surrender and hence the Ops as per terms and conditions of the policy made a pay out of Rs.1, 47,305/- for 1st policy and Rs.26, 973/- for the 2nd policy to the complainant and the said payment has been received by the complainant. The Ops denying any promise by the agent as well as OP.1, they contended that as per guidelines of IRDA, a free look period of 15 days has been provided under the policy and if the complainant did not agree with any term, he has option to return the policy. It is also further contended that the surrender amount as per prevailing market rate has been paid to the complainant as per policy condition and the investment of the complainant was in the share market which is also a speculative gain and does not come under the purview of C. P. Act. Thus denying any unfair trade practice on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case both the policies obtained by the complainant from the Ops and payment of surrender value during the month of January, 2014 are all admitted facts. The case of the complainant is that while obtaining the above policies, the OP.1 and its agent had assured and promised that the deposit amount will be double after 5 years after continuous deposit of 3 premiums but on surrender, the Ops paid less than the amount deposited as premiums by the complainant. The Ops denied any assurance given by them or by their agent at the time of sale of the policy as alleged by the complainant.
5. It is seen from the record that complainant had not placed any written assurance given by the Ops regarding any definite payment under the policy and in absence of any such written assurance; it cannot be held that as per assurance of the Ops, the complainant had obtained the policies. Further a free look period of 15 days were provided under the policies and the complainant had option to cancel the policies if he was not comfort with the terms and conditions but the complainant had not availed the facility. In view of above facts it cannot be presumed that the complainant had obtained policies as per assurance of the Ops and their agent. However, the complainant has nowhere disputed the terms and conditions of the policies that he obtained.
6. Further the Ops challenged the maintainability of this case under C. P. Act as the policies obtained by the complainant are unit gain policies. It is seen that the complainant has invested his money in Capital Unit Gain policies on 18.4.2007 and New Unit Gain account on 26.3.2008. Unit gain policy which was invested in share market is no doubt a speculative investment and the matter does not come under the C. P. Act since the funds under the policy are invested under the share market which is subject to speculation. Therefore, the Ops cannot assure any fixed return on those policies.
7. In view of above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the Ops had not assured any specific return to the complainant while selling the policies and also this case is not maintainable under C. P. Act. Thus we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(to dict.)
