An insured person is considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, even if the policy covers business-related risks.

1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed before this Commission under S.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , by KLJ Polymers & Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") against Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Opposite Party") seeking the following reliefs:
(a) "To pay in respect of the loss of raw material / chemicals stored at the raw material godown amounting to Rs.40,52,182 as per stock.
(b) To compensate on account of mental torture, untold mental agony, harassment and hardship to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000;
(c) To compensate for litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000;
(d) To pay interest @15% per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant had taken two standard fire and Special Perils Policies from the Opposite Party. The first policy bearing No. 272200/11/2010/131 was taken for a total sum insured of Rs. 15,50,00,000 in which plant and machinery with furniture, fixtures and Fittings, Building and stock was covered. Another policy bearing No. 272200/11/2010/132 was taken for a total sum insured of Rs 45,00,00,000 in which stocks of Unit - 1, Unit - 2 - Main Unit and the stocks of other group companies was covered. Both the abovesaid policies were valid from 18.06.2009 to 17.6.2010.

3. On 25.1.2010, smoke was detected in the raw material godown of the factory of the complainant which led to a fire. The probable cause was suspected to be a short circuit in the electrical wire or overhead tube light by the complainant.

4. The complainant had stored blowing agent ADCL - A14D and other chemicals and polymers in the said godown. The stored material caught fire which further led to mixing of different chemicals, due to which an explosion took place in the godown.

5. The officers of the Complainant informed the local police and the Opposite Party and requested them to appoint a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the Complainant. The Opposite Party deputed M/s. R.K. Patel & Co. as surveyors to asses the loss suffered by the Complainant. The surveyor carried out the survey on 28.1.2010 and made detailed inquiries about the incident and further requested for documents vide letter dated 29.1.2010. The surveyor again visited the premises and repeatedly requested for the Complainant's opinion on the incident and the statement of loss as assessed by the Complainant.

6. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.3.2010, the Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the claim is not admissible under the Insurance Policy on the ground that the damage to the stored goods happened due to self heating of the material, i.e. spontaneous combustion which is excluded from the insurance claim. The Surveyors reiterated the aforesaid findings in their letters dated 18.3.2010 and 1.5.2010. Henceforth, vide letter dated 3.8.2010, the Opposite party denied the claim on the ground that the fire was caused due to spontaneous combustion which is excluded as per the terms of the Insurance policies.

7. Thus, left with no other option, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has approached this commission.

8. The Opposite Party contested the present case and raised some preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the present complaint and contended (a) that the complainant is not a "Consumer" as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; (b) that the Complainant has failed to establish any kind of deficiency in providing services by the Opposite Party. Pressing the aforesaid preliminar