Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/58

THE MANAGER PNB MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

TONY E L - Opp.Party(s)

C S RAJMOHAN

04 Mar 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 58/15

JUDGMENT DATED:04.03.2016

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

1. The Manager,

PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd.,

(Formally known as Met Life), Branch Office,

Thodupuzha P.O, Idukki District.  Through-

Mr. Udaiy Kumar Jain,

Manager-Legal.

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS         

2. The Manager,

PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd.,

(Formally known as Met Life),

Palarivattam P.O, Kochi-25.  Through-

Mr. Udaiy Kumar Jain,

Manager-Legal.

 

                        Vs.

 

Tony.E.I,

Edathottiyil (Muttathusseril) House,

Kunnackal P.O, Muvattupuzha,

Now residing at Edathottityil House,                                 : RESPONDENT

Periyapuram P.O, Pampakkuda,

Muvattupuzha.

 

(By Adv: Sri.K.M. Sanu)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.  P.Q. BARKATH  ALI,  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.157/13 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki challenging the order of the Forum dated March 17, 2014, directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.1,76,922/- being the balance amount due under the insurance policy.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant on 7.1.2008 joined in the insurance scheme of the opposite parties and paid a premium of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The agent of the opposite parties represented that it is a single premium policy and if it is closed after 3 years he will get double the amount.  Opposite parties issued 4 receipts for Rs.49,999/- each.  After 3 years when the complainant applied for closure of the policy the opposite parties paid only a meager amount.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming the balance amount and compensation.

3.      Opposite parties are Metlife India Insurance Company Limited.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum:-  Complainant took two policies by fully understanding all the details.  The policy No.00466261 was issued on January 17, 2008 with an annual premium of Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of 10 years.  Policy No.00478170 was issued on February 07, 2008 with Rs.1,00,000/-  as annual premium for 56 years.  Policy No.00466261 was lapsed for non payment of subsequent premiums and surrender value of Rs.16,526.62/- was credited to the account of the complainant on March 22, 2011.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      On the side of the complainant Exts.P1 series were marked and no evidence was adduced by the opposite parties before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to pay to the complainant Rs.1,76,922/- being the balance premium amount in the policy.  Opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      Counsel for the appellants argued that the policy being a unit linked policy, Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  There is force in the above contention.  The copy of the policy produced along with the appeal shows that it is a unit linked policy National Commission in Ramlal Agarwala Vs. Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2013 (2) CPR 389 (NC) has found that policy having been taken for investment of premium amount in share market, which is for speculative gain complaint does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision we hold that complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the Act.  That being so the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In the result appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum allowing the complaint is set aside.  Complaint is dismissed as found not maintainable.  Complainant can approach other appropriate Fora like Permanent Lok Adalath to redress his grievance.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI   :  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.