View 984 Cases Against Aviva Life Insurance
View 32692 Cases Against Life Insurance
View 32692 Cases Against Life Insurance
AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD filed a consumer case on 23 Feb 2017 against UMNAUL JARSEENA in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/15/954 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Mar 2017.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO. 954/15
JUDGMENT DATED:23.02.2017
PRESENT :
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.V.V JOSE : MEMBER
2nd floor, Centre Point,
M.G. Road, Thrissur. : APPELLANTS
2nd floor, Grand Plaza,
Bank Road, Kannur-1.
(By Adv: Sri. Saji Isaac.K.J)
Vs.
Umnaul Jarseena,
M.P.Rafeeque, M.P. House,
Maniyoor P.O, Chekkikilam, : RESPONDENT
Kannur-670 952.
(By Adv: Sri. P.V. Shailajan & D.R.Rajesh)
JUDGMENT
HON. JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.280/12 on the file of CDRF, Kannur challenging the order of the Forum dated, September 30, 2015 directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant balance amount due under the policy.
2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-
Complainant took one policy from the opposite party in her name and paid 4 instalments of premium of Rs.10,000/- each. At the time of taking the policy the 1st opposite party and the Manager made her believe that she need to pay only the first instalment and can withdraw the money at any time and she will get an interest for the amount and also get compensation in the event of accident. After payment of 4 instalments she defaulted. When she wanted to surrender the policy she was informed that she will get an amount of Rs.3,239/- only. Complainant filed the complaint claiming balance amount under the policy.
3. First opposite party is Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, Thrissur and 2nd opposite party is its branch office at Kannur. They in their version contended thus before the Forum. The policy taken by the complainant was for a term of 20 years. Complainant paid only 4 instalments. Thereafter due to non payment of the premium policy lapsed. Therefore complainant is entitled to only the surrender value of the policy. Complainant is also not maintainable as the policy is a unit linked policy.
4. This complaint was jointly tried with CC.279/12 and PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B9 were marked on the side of the opposite parties before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that complainant is entitled to balance amount due under the policy. The opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
5. Heard both the counsels.
6. The following points arise for consideration:-
7. The counsel for the appellant mainly argued that since the policy is a unit linked policy, the complaint is not maintainable. 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.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
V.V JOSE : MEMBER
VL.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.