DATE OF FILING : 14.2.2017
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.33/2017
Between
Complainant : Komalam Govindan,
Mini House,
Chottupara P.O.,
Thovalappadi, Kallar – 685 552,
Idukki.
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India,
Nedumkandam, Idukki.
2. The Divisional Manager,
LIC of India,
Kurian Uthuppu Road,
Nagampadam, Kottayam.
(By Adv: M.V. Francis)
O R D E R
SRI.BENNY K., MEMBER
The complainant took an insurance policy from the 1st opposite party on 31.3.2011 as the agent of the company contacted her and explained the advantages and convinced her of the quality of the policy in detail. In the beginning itself the complainant clearly mentioned that she does not need a long term policy. As per the offer and assurance of opposite party, the complaint paid 5 instalments of Rs.5000/- each. Due to financial crisis, she could not remit the premium in time, while she contacted the opposite parties for refunding the paid amount, then they offered only Rs.2459/-. The insurance contract contended into the opposite party by hiding the actual facts is void. The complainant had not received any benefits as per the policy. The complainant is entitled to get the amount paid.
In the written version, opposite party had admitted the policy No.395376039 was issued by LIC Nedumkandam Branch office under LIC Endowment Plus Plan (T802) to the complainant. This plan is not a pension
(cont....2)
- 2 -
plan, it is a unit linked insurance plan (ULIP) with endowment type base. The amount on maturity is based on the policy holders' fund value.
The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 are marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R8 are marked on the side of opposite parties.
The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The POINT:- The opposite party challenged the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present complaint stating that it is a unit link insurance plan (ULIP) and law is now well settled that such policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such policy holder of such policies are not consumers and disputes relating to such policies are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum.
The Hon'ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. RP No.658/2012 has referred if the money of the complainant had been invested in the share market is of no doubt, a speculative gain and speculative investment matter does not came under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Hence the original petition dismissed. The complainant can approach appropriate authority for the same claim petition.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of September, 2017
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
