The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant has purchased an insurance Policy being no.04571715 of the oP Company .The policy was

initiated on 19.02.2007. The yearly premium totalling was stipulated at Rs.40,000/- only. The complainant  had paid the 1^st and 2^nd premium totalling Rs.80,000/- in time. But at the time of paying the 3^rd premium , she made some delay in making the payment. Thereafter, she requested ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd Chinsurah branch to take the 3^rd premium through cheque but the said branch refused to accept the same on the ground that the period of payment has elapsed. On 10.02.2011 the complainant  made payment through post vide cheque of Rs.40,000/- being no. 234841 dated 9.2.2011 . The said cheque was received by the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Mumbai on 14.2.2011 and they encashed the cheque on 22.2.2011 . Thereafter, the complainant became astonished when she found a letter dated 23.2.2011 addressing her,  which was sent by the oP no.2 that her policy was foreclosed with effect from 21.2.2011. Thereafter , the complainant  contacted over telephone to know the details but the Ops had not disclosed a single word regarding the foreclosure and threatened her with dire consequences. The Op no.2 had also sent a cheque of Rs.34,113.71/- and disclosed that the cheque amount is the final settlement on behalf of them, although the complainant  paid total premium amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for three years. Hence, this complaint.

            The Ops no.1 and 2 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the Ops is that it is the duty to read and understand the same and approach the company in case of any concerns. That in absence of any dis-satisfaction, it was implied that the complainant had read and understood the terms and conditions including the Foreclosure and policy continuation clauses and same were as per her requirements. The complainant should be put under strict proof for not paying the renewal premiums for a period of two years. It is admitted that the cheque of Rs.40,000/- was received by the company on 10.2.2011. But since the complainant failed to pay premium for two years i.e. for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the premium outstanding became Rs.80,000/-. The complainant paid only Rs.40,000/- , the same could not be applied to the subject policy as the said premium was short of Rs.40,000/- . The policy got foreclosed on 21.2.2011 and the foreclosure amount of Rs.34113.71/- was paid to the complainant and duly encashed by the complainant , along with the refund of the premium of Rs.40,000/- paid for revival of the policy was paid to the Customer and the same was duly encashed by her.  Hence, the Op prays for dismissal of the complaint.            

            Complainant filed Affidavit in chief and Written Notes of argument.   Op no. 1 and 2 filed one photo copy of judgement of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi and photo copy of Policy document.  Opposite parties no.1 and 2 also filed Written version, Evidence in chief and W.N.A.

            Upon pleadings, Written version and  the documents filed by all the parties the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.

                                                               Points

1. Whether the petitioner is a Consumer ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?                                             
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS                                                             

            All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.  

            It is admitted position that the complainant purchased the policy and complainant paid first and second premium. The complainant did not pay third premium for the year 2009 and 2010. The complainant paid the 3^rd premium in the year 2011. In the meantime, the OP foreclosed the policy. The Op returned back the third premium to the complainant. The Op also paid Rs. 34.113.71  to the complainant considering the lapse of the policy during the year 2009-2010 and

the complainant received that amount whereas complainant paid Rs.80,000/-. In this way, the complainant has waived her right to get back full amount of Rs.80,000/-. The policy being Unit Linked policy. The complainant did not produce the total unit possesses by the complainant during the year 2007 and 2008. Only Opposite parties  calculated the amount as per market value of the unit purchased by the complainant because ICICI Prudential Life is a Unit Link policy. The complainant did not file the original policy, reason best known to the complainant. Secondly, the Op has taken the defence that complainant is not a consumer because complainant invested the amount for future benefit i.e. it is a speculative investment. As such, the complainant is not a consumer. Against this argument the complainant did not produce any effective law that the complainant is a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. So, as per material of this case and after circumspection over the whole facts , produced within the four corner of record we are of opinion that Opposite party is not responsible in any for deficiency in service. Hence it is –

                                                                 Ordered

            That the CC no. 69 of 2016  be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.