BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 200/2011 Filed on 16.06.2011
ORDER DATED: 30.06.2015
Complainants:
- G. Karthikeyan Nair, Krishna Bhavan, Thannimoodu, Irinchayam P.O, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 561.
Additional complainants:
- Nirmala, W/o late G. Karthikeyan Nair, Krishna Bhavan, Thannimoodu, Irinchayam P.O, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 561.
- Krishna, D/o late G. Karthikeyan Nair, ..do.. ..do..
- Krishna, D/o late G. Karthikeyan Nair, ..do.. ..do..
(By Adv. Koliacode K. Rajeev)
Opposite parties:
- The General Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Pru Life Towers, 1089, Appa Saheb Marathi Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025.
- The Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
This case having been heard on 08.05.2015, the Forum on 30.06.2015 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. P. SUDHIR: PRESIDENT
Complainant’s case is that the complainant Karthikeyan Nair joined into the ICICI Prudential Insurance life stage pension policy dated 24.12.2007. At the time the complainant did not know the true nature of dealings and modus operandi of transaction. At the time when the complainant joined into the ICICI Prudential life stage pension policy, the opposite party’s authorized representative has not explained properly to the complainant the exact nature and operation of dealings. At the time of beginning of transaction, the complainant was made to understand that it would be a banking business and that the amount would be returned with interest on maturity. At the time of transaction, the complainant did not know the English language and therefore he was unable to read and understand the ways and means through which it is to be dealt with. The opposite party’s representative misleads the complainant to a certain extent for this personal achievement and he succeeded to achieve his goal by cheating the complainant. The complainant has already paid Rs. 1,90,000/- in two policies to the opposite party, out of which a meager amount was returned to the complainant through cheque and the balance amount is with the opposite party. In the nature of the above transaction the opposite party is liable to return the balance amount with interest to the complainant. The complainant after understanding the true nature of transaction directly requested several times to return the balance amount to the complainant. Even though, the complainant demanded the balance amount the opposite parties were not heeded to the demands of the complainant. Then, the complainant sent a legal notice through an advocate. After receiving the notice, the opposite parties sent a reply notice raising false and frivolous allegations. Hence the complainant has no other go but only to initiate legal proceedings against the opposite parties.
Original complainant died on 22.10.2012 and legal heirs were impleaded as per order in I.A No. 415/2012 dated 21.12.2012 and they are the complainants in the party array.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Forum and therefore same is liable to be dismissed under Sec. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. The present complaint does not raise any consumer dispute as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not disclosed any cause of action to proceed against the opposite parties and in absence of the same the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed under Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has filed the present complaint after the lapse of two years from the date of arisen of alleged cause of action. The subject policies were taken in December 2007 after depositing the premium of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,40,000/- for policies 07086949 and 07108079 respectively and thus the cause of action has arisen in December 2007 and the complaint has been preferred after the lapse of more than three years. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. There was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of opposite parties. Complainant is not maintainable. The present complaint is based on the allegation inter-alia that the complainant was made to understand that it would be banking business and the amount would be returned with interest on maturity. The extract from the proposal form duly signed by the complainant on the basis of which the subject policies was issued clearly shows that the complainant opted for the life stage pension plans with the yearly regular premium for a term of 10 years. The present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant in the present complaint has alleged interalia that the advisor of the opposite parties mislead the complainant as the complainant did not know English language and he was made understand that it was a banking business. It is stated that the at the proposal stage, the agent/advisor act as an agent of proposer and not of the insurance company. No agent can be assumed to have authority from the insurer to write the answer in the proposal form. If an agent nevertheless does that, he becomes merely the amanuensis of the insured and knowledge of the untruth or inaccuracy of any statement contained in the proposal form does not become the knowledge of the insurer. Admittedly, the complainant states that he does not know English language but he has signed the proposal forms in English and on the basis of which the subject policy was issued. If any person signed any document it is presumed that she signed the same after reading and understanding the said document. Thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite parties dispute and deny its liability to refund any balance amount as alleged in the complaint. The policy is a contract entered between the policy holder and the insurance company and parties to it are bound by its terms and conditions. Clause 11 of the policy terms deals with foreclosure of the policy which provides that “if the full premium for the first three policy years is not paid and the policy is not revived within the period of two years from the due of the first unpaid premium then the surrender value as described in clause 4 will be paid at the end of the third policy years or at the end of the reinstatement period, whichever is later”.
Issues:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
Point (i):- The policy taken by the complainant is a Unit Market linked policy. The 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 and complaint is only to be dismissed in the light of the dictum in Ramlal Aggarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC) and the same was followed by our Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal Case No. 712/2012 dated 28.02.2014. So we have no other go but to dismiss the complaint without entering to the merits of the case. Since issue (i) is found against the complainant we are not entering to the issues (ii) to (iv).
In the result, complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for this Forum without cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of June 2015.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
