IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 28th day of January, 2016
Filed on 04.02.2010
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.342/2010
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Raju, Prasanthi 1. The Branch Manager
Cheppad P.O. M/s. HDFC Standard Life
Alappuzha – 690 507 Insurance Company Ltd.
(By Adv. R. Rajendra Prasad) Kayamkulam Branch
KMC 32 420-A, NH 47
Near City Hospital
Kayamkulam – 690 502
2. The General Manager
M/s. HDFC Standard Life
Insurance Co. Ltd., 5th Floor
Eureka Towers, Mindspace Complex
Link Road, Malad (West)
Mumbai – 400 064
(By Adv. Saji Isaac)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded case. An appeal has been filed by the opposite parties against the ex-parte order of this Forum and it is allowed and order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellants pay a sum of Rs.8000/- towards costs to the complainant and it can be withdrawn by the complainant. On the basis of that order, opposite parties remitted the cost and filed version.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
On the basis of the assurance of the agents of the opposite parties, complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh with the opposite parties on 5.9.2007 by subscribing for an insurance policy having a single premium for the said amount. The opposite parties also made him to believe that he will get a good return if such policy is taken and he need only a single payment of Rs.1 lakh as premium. On September 2010 he had received 2 cheques from the opposite parties for Rs.19,476.60/- each. On enquiry with the opposite party, they had informed him that they have split up the amount of Rs.1 lakh to Rs.50,000/- each and complainant had to pay a premium of Rs.50,000/- each the yearly premium. The opposite parties had cheated him by way of fraud and by unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is filed.
3. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The policy taken by the complainant is a unit linked policy and is as a speculative investment and speculative gain and the complaint does not come under the Consumer Protection Act.
4. The point for consideration is whether the complaint maintainable or not?
5. According to the opposite parties, the policy issued is a unit linked policy for speculative gain and that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The copies of the policy produced before the Forum show that it is a unit linked policy with speculative gain. The National Commission in Ramlal Agarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2013(2) CPR 389 held 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. The same decision is relied by the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No. 264/14, 351/14 and 140/15.
In the result, complaint is not maintainable and hence dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of January, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
