ORDER

The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (“the Act”), against the Order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.3, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (“State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2015, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint.

2. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he is a retired employee and he was approached by Manager of OP Company at his residence and represented that their company operated like a bank and offered Fixed Deposits (FD) that would double in 5-6 years. The Manager of the Local (Regional) Branch assured him that the amount would remain safe and suggested appointing a family member as an authorized agent for further security. He agreed and appointed his daughter-in-law as the agent. However, without explaining the agent’s role or product, the OP took Rs.18,00,000 from him, obtained his signature on a blank form. Subsequently, OP-1 sent a policy form for FD and a cover letter, which revealed that the policy issued was actually the “Life Maker Premium Investment Plan”. The policy required premiums of Rs.12,00,000 for one policy and Rs.6 lakhs for the second, contrary to the representation that it was an FD. Despite this, the Complainant paid the amount for an FD. Upon the expiration of the policy period, he contacted the local branch, where he was informed that the policy had already been surrendered, and the value had reduced to zero since the Complainant made only single deposit. He was explained that, to receive payment, he was required to deposit additional amounts over five years. The Complainant was further advised that if he deposited the outstanding amount, the policy could be revived, and payment made according to the company’s rules. Based on this, the Complainant consented vide email on 17.03.2013 to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.72,00,000. However, on 22.09.2013, OP-1 informed the Complainant by email that the policy could not be revived. According to the company’s rules, after deducting a 25% surrender charge from the fund value of the deposit, the remaining amount could be refunded. The Complainant who was expecting double the deposit amount within five years, was dissatisfied. When he sought payment of the remaining amount, after 25% deduction, from the local branch, the defendants claimed the fund value was zero and denied any payment. Aggrieved by this, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2015.

4. In response to the complaint before the State Commission, OPs filed their written statement wherein all the allegations were denied and it was asserted that the disputed insurance policy was a Unit Linked Plan, wherein the Insurance Company had invested the premium paid by the policyholder in the share market, making the policy subject to market fluctuations. This was taken for purely commercial purposes, classifying the services provided by the OPs as commercial in nature. As per IRDA regulation the Complainant was provided an option to cancel and opt out of the policy if he was unsatisfied. However, the Complainant did not take any action during this period, indicating satisfaction with the policy’s terms and conditions. In Proposal Form No.716501051, his son, Rattan Singh, was the policy holder, and Poonam Kanwar, the Complainant’s daughter-in-law, was the agent for the policy. In Proposal Form No.716501069, the Complainant’s daughter, Shakuntla Chandrawat, was the policy holder. Both policy holders, by signing the Declaration and Authorization clause in the proposal forms, had declared that all the facts provided were true and that they understood and accepted the terms and conditions of the policies. The policy holders acknowledged their obligation to pay premium of Rs.12,00,000 annually for five years under