D.O.F:26/02/2019

                                                                                                  D.O.O:30/09/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

CC.No42/2019

Dated this, the 30^th day of September 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Ravidas.M

S/o Kunhiraman Nair,

R/at “SNEHAM” National Nagar,                                   : Complainant

Shiribagilu Village and Post- 671124,

Kasaragod Taluk

                                                            And

The Grievance Redressal Officer,

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd,

City Center,

ICIC Bank Road,                                                              : Opposite party

Kasaragod – 671121

( Adv: M. Vinod Bhattathiripad )

                                                                        ORDER

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M

         The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended). The fact of the case in brief is as follows:-

        That the complainant purchased an insurance policy of the opposite party of which the annual premium is Rs. 10,000/- and the sum assured is Rs. 3,00,000/-. There is no branch office or agent of the opposite party at Kasaragod and no person approached the person for collecting the premium amount after the first premium paid on 24/03/2007. The complainant tried his best to remit the further premium but there was no machinery at kasaragod and hence he could not remit further premium. The complainant sent a registered notice dated 14/02/2013 to the opposite party but there was no response. The act of the opposite party amounts to service deficiency due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and monitory loss. Therefore the complainant is filed for directing the opposite party to refund of Rs. 10,000/- along with compensation and costs.

        The opposite party entered appearance through their counsel who filed written version. As per the written version the complainant is malicious, baseless and not maintainable at low or in facts. The opposite party admit the issuance of the policy. The policy is unit linked policy for speculative gain hence the complaint is not maintainable in this forum. The complainant was under the obligation to renew premium annually to keep the policy in active mode and avail the benefits of insurance policy. In present case the complainant only paid Rs.10,000/- and neglected to pay the subsequent renewal premium and hence the policy become lapsed and for closed. The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no service deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

       The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The document Ext A1 is marked. The Ext A1 is the policy No.0044730534 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant PW1 was cross examined.

     The opposite party did not adduce any evidence.

         Based on the pleadings of the rival parties. The following issues are framed

1. Whether the complainant is maintainable as per law?
2. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?
3. If so what is the relief and costs?

At first the issue No.1, the maintainability of the complaint is considered. The opposite party raised the question of maintainability, before this forum. Here the policy purchased by the complainant is a unit linked policy. The document Ext A1 is the original of the policy certificate. It shows that “2, policy description 2.1. The policy is a unit linked endowment (Regular premium) type of product”. “2.2 being a unit linked life insurance policy the policy holder / life assured has the option to allocate the premium paid by him between one or more of the funds for purchase of the units there off”. Thus as per the policy, it is evident that the money of the complainant can be invested in share market for a speculative gain. Therefore in the light of the judgement in the case reported in 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC), if the money of the complainant can be invested in share market for speculative gain the matter does not come under the preview of Consumer Protection Act. Here the policy availed by the complainant is a unit linked policy for speculative gain. Hence the complaint is not maintainable as per the Consumer Protection Act. Thus the issue No.1 is answered against the complaint. Since it is found that the complaint is not maintainable, the other 2 issues are not relevant.

In the result the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. There is no order as to costs.

A1 – Policy Certificate

Witness Examined

Pw1- Ravidas.M

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/