BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of November 2016
Filed on : 28-09-2013
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.671/2013
Between
Between
Shahul Hameed, : Complainant
Razeen Villa, (By Adv. Arun Valenchery,
Chithrapuzha road, MIG No. 428, Panampilly
Irimpanam P.O., Nagar P.O., Kochi-682 036)
Ernakulam-682 309.
And
The Branch Manager, : Opposite party
HDFC Standard Life Insurance (By Adv. Saji Isaac K.J., 311 H.B
Company Ltd. Flats, Panampilly Nagar,
Kochi Branch, Cochin-36)
C/o. HDFC Ltd., 5th Floor,
HDFC House, Ravipuram Junction,
M.G. Road, Kochi-682 015.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant had taken a HDFC Unit Linked Young Star Plan Life Policy having number 10090868 on 30-11-2004 for a sum assured of Rs. 14,80,000/- from the opposite party. The period of the premium was 15 years and the complainant had to pay the premium for a minimum period of 3 years which is the policy alive. The complainant had to pay Rs. 37,000/- as quarterly premium and the opposite party used to deduct an amount of Rs. 1,928.46 towards life risks charges and Rs. 15/- towards policy charges with tax. The complainant paid 14 quarterly premium from the beginning without any brake which amounted to Rs. 5,18,000/-. Thereafter the complainant had stopped to pay the premium due to the poor performance of the fund. On 17-09-2007 the complainant was informed by the opposite party that the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of the further premium and the policy had become paid up resulting in cancellation of all the benefit under the policy. On 30-11-2012 the complainant received a summary statement wherein it was stated that even after the policy had become paid up, the insurance company was deducting charges like mortality charges of Rs. 24,267.64, extra life benefit charges Rs. 14,497.33 and administrative charges Rs. 237.25 and with tax amounting to Rs. 4,494.26, total of which amounted to 43,496.48 p.a. from the outstanding amount available in the above said policy which is against the terms and conditions of the policy and insurance claim. The complainant therefore issued a legal notice on 21-12-2012 to the opposite party calling upon to rectify the mistake. But the opposite party maintained that they had the right to deduct the same. The clauses relied on by the opposite party in the reply notice are applicable only to the live policy and not for paid up policy. The complainant had earlier filed CC.119/13. It was dismissed for default . The complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount illegally deducted by the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 1,60,305/- as on 31-01-2013 from 01-06-2007 the fund available in the policy after the policy became paid up. The complainant also seeks damages to the tune of Rs. 100/- per day and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered.
3. The opposite parties who were served with the notice appeared and resisted the claim by filing a version contending inter-alia as follows:
4. The complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is barred by law of limitation. The policy taken by the complainant is a speculative investment and is a speculative gain and hence the complaint will not lie before a Consumer Fourm. The complainant had filed the proposal after going through the terms and conditions and understanding the same. The terms of the policy are binding on both parties. The complainant was liable to pay the amount under the policy under the terms and conditions, as the opposite party was entitled to deduct the charges as stated in the conditions of the policy. There is no cause of action for the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The following issues were settled for trial
i. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii. Whether the complainant had proved that the opposite partis had committed any deficiency in service as alleged?
iii. Reliefs and costs
6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party proved Exbt. B1 document without adducing any oral evidence.
7. Issue No. 1 and 2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party at the outset that the complaint is not maintainable for various reasons. The various grounds were urged were that the complaint is barred by the principles of res-judicata and by statute of limitation. It was further argued that the policy taken by the complainant was a Unit Linked Policy and therefore not maintainable. The complainant was examined as PW1. According to the complainant his case was on the basis of illegal collection of money by deducting unnecessary charges without any authorization. According to the complainant even as per the schedule of charges the opposite party could deduct only policy charge and fund management charge. The learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand had argued that the complaint itself is not maintainable before this Forum both legally and factually.
The complainant had admitted even in the complaint that he joined the opposite party by taking a Market Linked Life Insurance Policy. The policy was by way of investment to be utilized in share market. The complainant admitted that he failed to remit the agreed instalment after payment of 14 instalments. The complainant was informed by the opposite party as early in 2007 that the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of further payment. The complainant is seen to have kept mum over such intimation. His grievance is that as per the statement dated 30-11-2012 the opposite party had deducted various other charges . The complainant was aware that his policy has been already lapsed as early in 2007. The grievance of the complainant is based on the fact that the policy was lapsed in the year 2007. Therefore the complaint filed in the year 2013 after a period of 2 years from the year 2007 is barred by Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. Further the complainant can not be deemed as a 'consumer' since the policy taken by the complainant was a unit linked policy which was speculative in nature. Such dispute relating to Unit Linked Policy are not entertainable before the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. This position was well settled in the case of Ram Lal Agarwal Vs. Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company (2013 (II) CPR 389 (NC). The complainant had filed this complaint after dismissal of his previous complaint seeking the very same relief from this Forum. Instead of taking steps to restore CC. 119/2013 the complainant had filed this fresh complaint without any merit. We therefore find that the complaint is not maintainable and has failed to make out any case of a consumer dispute. Issues are found against the complainant.
Issue No. 3. Having found issue number 1 and 2 against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to the dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2016
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 02-12-2004
A2 : Copy of intimation of policy lapse
A3 : Copy of Annual Unit Statement of
account.
A4 : Lawyer notice dt. 21-12-2012
A5 : Copy of reply notice
dt. 03-01-2012
Opposite party's Exhibits
Exbt. B1 : True copy of letter dt. 02-12-2004
Depositions
PW1 : Shahul Hameed
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post : By Hand:
