IMPORTANT POINT
Unit linked schemes cannot bring any fixed amount to investors.

Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member—This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OP against the order, dated 29.11.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 155 of 2010, vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund Rs.30,000/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 6% from 17.9.2008, Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation, within 30 days, failing which, the OP was liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the date of filing the complaint, till the order was fully complied with.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the agent of the OP approached the complainant for Life Insurance Policy. The said agent specifically told him that investment of Rs.10,000/- per year, would fetch Rs.45,000/-, after the expiry of three years. The complainant paid the regular installments for three years and, thereafter, he approached the OP for enquiring about the amount. The OP told him that he would get Rs.19,877/- only. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, if three years premiums were paid, then no surrender charge was applicable, but the OP did not adhere to the said terms and conditions. The complainant wrote letters dated 2.6.2008, 17.6.2009 and 10.12.2009 to the OP, but to no avail. The complainant personally visited the office of the OP, but till date, no amount was refunded to him. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OP, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3. Reply was filed by the OP, wherein, it was admitted that the policy, in question, was issued in the name of the complainant. It was stated that the policy (Unit Gain) was directly connected with the share market. It was further stated that because of economic melt down, in the International market, the price of the units issued to the complainant, under the policy, in question, also reduced, which was not under the control of the OP. It was further stated that the policy was issued, on the basis of proposal form, filled in and signed by the complainant, and he was given 15 days ‘Free Look Period’ to seek cancellation of the policy, if the terms thereof were not acceptable to him, but he failed to do so. It was denied that any request was received from the complainant. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5. The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.

6. Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP, filed the instant appeal.

7. We have heard Sh.Nitesh Singhi, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the appellant, respondent in person alongwith Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, and have perused the record, carefully.

8. The learned proxy Counsel for the appellant/OP contended that the policy namely UNIT GAIN PLUS which was issued to the complainant, was directly related with the share market and because of economic melt down in the International market, which also adversely affected the share market of India, the price of shares of even big companies fell down. Similarly, the price of units issued to the complainant, under the policy, in question, also reduced, which was not under the control of any particular individual. Moreover, the unit price fluctuates day by day and sometimes it goes up and sometimes it becomes very low. Due to instability in the market, it cannot be said what would be the rate of unit at the time of surrender by the respondent, if he choses so. It was further s