DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of March 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing : 12/08/2013
CC No.136/2013
Lalitha Iyyer,
D/o.Krishna Iyyer,
Ambalamadam, Nellaya (PO),
Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad District
(By Party in person) - Complainant
Vs
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep.by Manager,
Ottapalam Branch,
Ottapalam, Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv.T.P.George)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT.
Brief case of the complaint.
The opposite party approached the complainant in the year 2007 and offered the scheme of money plus under the Life Insurance Corporation of India to the complainant. They prompted the complainant to deposit the amount and assured definite growth of the amount. Believing the words of the opposite party the complainant deposited Rs.60,000/- in the company. In the year 2013 they sent a statement stating that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- and to furnish account details. But subsequently they shifted their stand and sent a letter stating that complainant is entitled to Rs.52,186/- Then they sent the amount to Vijaya Bank, Nellaya Branch (Account No.205301011001885).
Even though the complainant deposited Rs.60,000/- to the LIC only Rs.52,186/- is given after 5 years. Due to the act of the opposite party the complainant sustained pecuniary loss, mental agony and sufferings.
Hence the complaint.
Opposite party filed version contending the following:
The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The transaction between the complainant and the opposite party was a commercial one. Complainant has invested the amount for commercial purpose and therefore not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. The money invested by the complainant is in a unit linked policy which depends on market volatility and the value may go up or down depending upon the market condition. It is a speculative investment for speculative gain. So it does not come under Consumer Protection Act.
Opposite party admits that the complainant has taken a policy vide policy number 776080945 in the name of Lalitha.P.K. The sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/- and the yearly premium was Rs.20,000/- per year. Date of commencement of the policy was 02/07/2007. She has paid a premium of Rs.20,000/- on 02/7/2007 and Rs.40,000/- on 4/03/2010. The policy issued to the complainant was LIC’s Money Plus Plan as per the proposal form submitted by her. In this plan the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by policy holder herself. It is specifically mentioned in the proposal form itself that Money Plus is a ULIP (United Linked Insurance Plan) plan. Out of the premium amount, certain expenses like allocation charges, service charges etc. shall be deducted as per the conditions and privileges of the policy. With the remaining amount units were purchased and 4,535.875 units were in her credit. Mortality charges were deducted from the fund value by cancellation of appropriate number of units. As on the date of surrender the net asset value (NAV) per unit was 11.5051 and accordingly complainant was entitled to get Rs.52,186/- and that amount was credited to the complainant’s account through NEFT on 18/01/2013.
The complainant opted to invest the amount in growth fund. The value of the units as well as benefits relating to the policy holders Unit account are subject to market and other risks and there can be no assurance that the objectives of any of the above funds will be achieved. Further, the value of the units in each fund can go up or down depending on the different factors affecting the capital markets and may also be affected by changes in the general level of interest rates and other economic factors. The allegation in the complaint that the complainant has received statement sent by the opposite party stating that she is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- and subsequently shifted their stand etc. are denied. No such statement is sent by the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
Complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B2 marked on the side of opposite party.
Issues for consideration.
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2.If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issues 1 & 2
It is admitted case that the complainant has deposited a total amount of Rs.60,000/- in LIC Money Plus Plan which is a unit linked Insurance Policy. The pleadings in the complaint reveals the fact that the complainant is fully aware that it is a unit linked policy. Money Plus plan being a unit linked policy is subject to market fluctuation. Moreover it is specifically stated in Ext.B2 policy that the investment risk in investment port folio is borne by policy holder herself. Insurance Policy being a contract, both parties are bound by the terms and condition of the policy. Amount as per eligibility as on date of surrender has been already credited to the account of the complainant. Hence we are not in a position to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of March 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of premium receipt for Rs.40,000/-
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of first premium receipt for Rs.20,000/-
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of status report of policy No.776080945
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of Proposal Form for LIC’s Money Plus Plan
Ext.B2 – Photocopy of Money plus Policy
