Ld Advocates are present. Judgement is ready. It is pronounced in open Commission.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is a consumer as insured under the Opposite Parties by depositing premium amounting Rs. 7,000/- per annum in connection with policy No. 17443676. The Complainant deposited four premiums before the opposite parties corresponding dated 15.07.2010, 19.08.2011, 27.07.2012 & 11.03.2014 amounting Rs. 7,000/-each. After that due to unavoidable circumstances the complainant couldn’t continue the said policy.The complainant’s address has been recorded in the policy deed as Vill. & P.O. - Baishnabchak, P.S.-Kolaghat, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin-721158. The Complainant intended to withdraw the policy amount Rs. 28,000/- (Twenty eight thousand) from the nearest office i.e. O.P. No. 1 & 2. After several conversation in between complainant and O.P. No.2, the op-2 refused to return the said policy amount. After that the complainant made contact with the office of the O.P. No.2 for the aforesaid purpose. After that the O.P. No.2 advised the complainant for depositing original policy deed and premium receipts; and the complainant deposited that same before the office of the O.P. No.2 on 19.12.2019. OP-2 issued receipt copy with seal and signature. After that the complainant severally informed to O.P. No.2 and also informed customer care through Gmail dated 07.09.2020. After that Complainant physically attended severally office of the O.P. No.1 &2 . The O.P. No.1 & 2 took some time verbally from the Complainant. Then the complainant came to know from O.P. No.1 & 2 that the insurer company already issued the cheque in favour complainant and complainant received the same and drawn the same in  Assam. After that the complainant informed the O.P. No. 1 in written form on 02.09.2021. The Complainant stated that prior to marriage complainant resides her parental house which is recorded in the policy deed and after marriage she resides at her matrimonial. Complainant did not reside any time in Assam or anywhere in India except her aforesaid address. The complainant also provided the Bank statement to the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.4 informed to the complainant in writing on 22.10.2021 as “We refer to the communication in e-mail regarding Traditional Super Invest Assure Plan Policy No. 17443676 and the concern you have highlighted to us” and also assured for routine investigation through letter dated 22.10.2021 via Assam. After that the complainant sent a legal notice through Advocate on 13.01.2022 to OP Nos.1 & 3. They received the same on 18.01.2022 & 25.01.2022. The Complainant suffered a loss/damage which has been caused by O.P. No.1 to 4 by their unfair acts and deficiency in service resulting a loss to an amount at Rs. 28,000/- only. The cause of action arose on 25.01.2022 with in the period of limitation of two years. Complainant further submits that there is /was latches on the part of the O.P. No.1 to 4. The complainant is entitled to get full deposited amount of Rs. 28,000/- alongwith costs of Rs. 1,50,000/- for litigation Cost and mental agony from the Opposite Parties.

Notices were duly served upon the ops calling upon them to answer the complaint. The ops have resisted the claims of the complainant by filing a written version thereto. Succinctly, put the contentions made can be delineated as follows: The OPs deny all the allegations contained in the complaint, except those are specifically admitted in this Written Statement or otherwise dealt with, and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. It is also submitted that, anything stated in the complaint contrary to and/or inconsistent with what is stated in the present written statement be deemed to be expressly denied. Admittedly, in the instant case, the policy in question is a Market Linked policy and law is now well settled that such policies are speculative in nature and the same are taken for investment purpose and as such the policy holder of such policies are not consumers and disputes relating to such policies are not sustainable before the Consumer Forum. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Naitonal Commission rendered in the matter of Ramlal Aggarwala Vs. bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013(2) CPR 389 (2) CPR 389(NC), III(2013) CPJ203(NC). The State Commission, Tiruvanathapuram in First Appeal No. 712/2012 in the matter of Satheesh Lal Versus HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, by relying upon the Judgement passed in the matter of Ram Lal Agarwala has further confirmed the order of the National Commission that Unit linked policies are speculative in nature and the disputes relating to the appellants are not entertainable before the Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant had opted for a Reliance Nippon Life Super Invest Assure Plan bearing policy No. 17443676 with risk commencing from 15/07/2010. The duration of the policy was 15 years and total 4 premiums amounting to Rs. 28,000/- have been paid by the Complainant. The policy in question was a Unit Linked Policy, which entirely depends on the market conditions. The amount invested by the complainant was fully utilized in the share market and the policy holder cannot withdraw beyond the period of policy. In the event of the Policy being cancelled, either due to non-payment of premium of due to surrender of the policy, the Company shall then pay the value of the Units, after deducting Cancellation Charges as described in the Schedule of Charges in the Policy Schedule. Admittedly,  Since, the Complainant stopped paying the premiums, resulting into the lapse of the policy, therefore, the Opposite Party vide VIDE HDFC NEFT Ref No. N129221951495124 transferred an amount Rs. 29957.72/- on 07.05.2022 of as auto surrender amount, the fund value as on the date of surrender which was duly accepted by the complainant without any demur or protest. As such, the main prayer of the complainant stood fulfilled and hence, the instant complaint has become baseless. Now, after receipt of the surrender amount, the complainant with manipulative gluttony has again come up with this instant frivolous litigation. There has been no negligence or deficiency in services whatsoever, on the part of the Opposite Parties in dealing with the concerned Policy. It is pertinent to note that Section 2(1) (g) of the 1986 Act defines deficiency as “any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. Thus, as per the definition and considering the above submissions there has been no negligence, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties which had acted with diligence and in good faith. The complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine with cost.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?   

2.  Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and evidence produced by Complainant and documents as annexures. In the instant case, the complainant has put the claim in terms of clause 10 of Policy condition and privileges mentioned in the Reliance life Insurance brochure.The dispute does not relate to any Unit Linked Policy risk or market conditions. The question entirely relates to delay in dispensing of service about the surrender benefit after payment of 4 premiums. The principle of law as enunciated in the matter of RamlalAggarwala Vs. bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013(2) CPR 389 (2) CPR 389(NC), III(2013) CPJ203(NC) is not applicable in this case as the facts and circumstances of the cited case are different from the facts and circumstances of this case. On total appraisal of the materials on records along with bundle of facts it appears that the complainant is a Consumer. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

Now, on evaluation of the evidence on record it appears that indisputably the ops have made payment vide HDFC NEFT Ref No. N129221951495124 transferring an amount Rs. 29957.72/- on 07.05.2022 of as auto surrender amount, the fund value as on the date of surrender which was duly accepted by the complainant. The moot question requires to be answered as to whether the ops have still made any deficiency in service. The complainant put surrender claim in motion on 19.12.2019 and got the claim satisfied on 07.05.2022. In this context the Ld. Advocate for the Ops contended that the settlement of this type of premature claim took time due to COVID-19 pandemic situation. The complainant could not show any time bound clause in the terms and privilege of the insurance contract that the ops failed to settle the premature claim. The insurance which was commenced on 15.07.2010 with duration for 15 years ; the complainant paid last premium on  11.03.2014 and remained  defaulter for about 5 years. Since, the Complainant stopped paying the premiums, resulting into the lapse of the policy.As such ops had to proceed for their own investigation process. We find there is substance in the argument explaining the reasonable time taken for the settlement of the claim.  The ops paid the due amount before service of the notices of the complaint case. The notices were delivered on 09.05.2022, 10.05.2022 and 03.06.2022; the fund was transferred by the ops on07.05.2022. There is no concrete evidence of any “any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. Thus, as per the definition Deficiency and considering the above materials on record there has been no negligence, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties which had acted  in good faith.. The complainant has failed to bring home the elements of deficiency in  service against the ops . There is no deficiency in  service on the part of this Opp. Parties.  Resultantly, complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Both the points are disposed of accordingly.

Thus, the case fails.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/53 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs is passed.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the parties free of cost.