State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mafatlal T Padhiyar vs Lic Of India on 31 March, 2023
Details DD MM YY
Date of disposal 31 03 2023
Date of filing 12 10 2017
Duration 19 05 05
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE AHMEDABAD.
COURT NO: 03
APPEAL NO. 688 of 2017
Mafatlal Tulsaji Padhiyar
Add: Laxaminagar, Mansarovar Road,
Palanpur, Dist: Banaskantha. ...Appellant.
V.s
LIC of India
Branch No. 2, Jyoti Building,
Opp. Eye Hospital,
Palanpur, Banaskantha. ...Respondents.
==============================================================
BEFORE: Mr. I. D. Patel, Judicial Member.
APPERANCE: Mr. M. V. Patel, L. A. for the appellant,
L. A. Ms. S. R. Shelat on behalf of L. A. Mr. P. R. Jani, for the
respondent
=============================================================
ORDER BY Mr. I. D. PATEL, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed this appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Complaint No.201/2016. The appellant is the original complainant as well as the respondent is the original opponent in this appeal. Therefore, hereinafter the appellant and respondent are referred to by their original nomenclature/status.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had taken Jivan Saral Life insurance policy barring no. 853972865 from Palanpur branch of the LIC for the period of 10 years. It is further, the case of the complainant that as per the policy the complaint has to pay monthly premium Rs. 1557/- and the policy is matured on 07.03.2016 and on the date of the maturity applicant is entitled to get Rs.2,50,000/- of maturity sum assured. It is further the case of the complainant that on 02.09.2015 opponent had written letter to the K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 1 of 11 complainant where in it has been informed that in the policy document issued to the complainant by the LIC there has been a inadvertent typographical error in the maturity sum assured which has shown Rs,.2,50,000/- instead of correct maturity sum assured of Rs.30,590/- and Insurance Company has also sent discharge voucher of full and final settlement of Rs. 37,387/- to the complainant vide letter dated 16.12.2015 but thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice to the opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India demanding Rs.2,50,000/- and eligible amount of bonus but the LIC has not responded the said notice therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur for getting Rs.2,50,000/- maturity sum assured along with the interest at the rate of 18% and other amount of the compensation.
3. That the Ld. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, has issued notice to the opponent Life Insurance Corporation and in turn Life Insurance Corporation has submitted written statement against the complaint wherein they have categorically denied that as per the policy in question complainant is entitled to get maturity sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- furthermore, opponent has also contended in the written statement that Jivan Saral Policy is a unique policy and as per the said policy if the policy holder dies during the subsistence of the Policy then his legal heirs are entitled to get higher amount of death benefit i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- of the basic amount of the premium it is further contended by the opponent in their written statement that as per the Policy if the Policy holder survives on the date of maturity then he has entitle to get the amount of maturity sum assured as per Rs. 100/- basic premium as per the attached statement calculation and legal heirs are also entitle to get eligible amount of loyalty and the said facts was well within the knowledge of the complainant. It is further contended by the opponent Insurance Corporation that on account of system programming mistake in the Policy it was mentioned Rs. 2,50,000/- death benefits sum assured and Rs. 2,50,000/- accident benefit sum assured amount and the amount of maturity sum assured on the date of maturity of the Policy has not been shown in the Policy. It is further, contended by the opponent Insurance Corporation that Jivan Saral Policy came to be introduced by LIC on 16.02.2004 and the said Policy is for the period of 10 years and as per the letter dated 02.09.2015 LIC informed the complainant that as per the Policy terms and conditions complainant is entitled to get Rs. 30,590/- for maturity sum assured amount and additional amount of loyalty. So, as per the written statement of the Insurance Corporation applicant cannot get K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 2 of 11 the disadvantage of the typographical mistake in the Policy with regard to the maturity sum assured and hence the complaint filed by the complainant requires to be dismiss with costs.
4. After hearing the Ld. Advocate of the parties and after perusal of the material on record the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palanpur at Banaskantha, directed opponent Insurance Corporation to pay Rs. 37,387/- and amount of loyalty to the complainant vide order dated 01.09.2017 hence being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha passed in Consumer Complaint No. 201/2016 appellant/original complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground stated in the appeal memo.
5. I have heard the Ld. Advocate of the appellant /original complainant Mr. M. V. Patel and also heard Ld. Advocate Ms. S. R. Shelat, on behalf of the Ld. Advocate Mr. P. R. Jani, of the respondent Corporation the Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur passed in Consumer Complaint No. 201/2016 dated 01.09.2017 is not just and proper and the Ld. Forum, has not considered the Policy in question in the right prospective not only that furthermore, he has also submitted that the complainant had paid Rs. 1,86,840 by way of monthly premium of Rs. 1,557/- during the period of 10 years and therefore, complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- as a maturity sum assured as shown in the Policy issued by the Life Insurance Co. of India. That the Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel, has also submitted that in the Policy copy produced in this appeal page 40 amount of maturity sum assured is shown as Rs. 2,50,000/- then amount of death benefits maturity is not shown. Thereafter, accident benefits sum assured Rs. 2,50,000/- is shown. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel that at the time of taking Insurance Policy Life Insurance Co. of India, had informed the complainant that he will get only Rs. 30,590/- as a maturity sum assured on the date of the maturity of the policy on the payment of Rs. 1,557/- premium for the period of 10 years then the complainant had been not taken the Policy in question which is not beneficiary for the complainant. Furthermore, Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel has also submitted that when the insurance Company written letter reducing the amount of maturity sum assured of Rs. 30,590/- as on 02.09.2015 where as the Policy in question came to be issued on 07.03.2006 therefore, there is no question for the complainant to K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 3 of 11 cancel the said Policy within the period of 15 days from the date of issuance of Policy by way of free look period and at the relevant point of time there was no any correction in the Policy therefore, also there is no question for the complainant to cancel the Policy within the free look period.
6. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate Mr. M.V. Patel that as per the letter dated 02.09.2015 of the opponent insurance corporation there was a typographical error in the maturity sum assured in the Policy then heavy burden lies on the Insurance Corporation to prove that who has committed the typographical mistake. But in this case LIC has failed to prove that to the same and therefore merely on the basis of letter dated 02.09.2015 it cannot be said that there was a typographical error shown in the maturity sum assured in the policy of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel, that the opponent insurance Corporation has no legal right to make correction in the policy on the ground of typographical error after the period of 10 years from the date of issuance of the policy. The Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel has also submitted that though the Insurance Corporation committed other mistake also in the policy but the Insurance corporation notice only the mistake committed in the amount of the maturity sum assured shown in the policy. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel that on perusal of the proposal form page no.19 on the right side the purpose of taken the life insurance policy is specifically shown for saving and for protection and therefore also it cannot be believe that there was a typographically mistake in the policy in showing the amount of maturity sum assured of Rs. 2,50,000/- Ld. advocate Mr. M. V. Patel has also further, submitted that the opponent Insurance Corporation has place reliance upon the circular dated 27.07.2015 for the correction in the policy of maturity sum assured but that circular is internal instruction of the life Insurance Corporation of India and that is not binding to the complainant and therefore as per the submission of the Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel when the complainant paid huge amount of Premium to the Life Insurance Corporation of India and he was made to known at the time of issuance of policy that he will entitles to get Rs. 2,50,000/- as a maturity sum assured than the LIC has no legal right to reduce the said amount from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs.30,509/-. That the Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel has also place reliance upon the judgment cited before the Ld. District Forum on behalf of the complainant and also place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission reported III (2012) CPJ 250 in the case of Branch K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 4 of 11 Manager of the LIC Vs. Sunilkumar Palival and submitted that even if there was a typographical mistake on the part of the LIC in the Life Insurance policy then the complainant is entitled to get the amount as a maturity sum assured of Rs. 2,50,000/- as a shown in the policy and therefore, Ld. Advocate Mr. M. V. Patel submitted to allow the appeal file by the complainant by quashing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur.
7. Per contra Ld. Advocate Ms. S. R. Shelat on behalf of the Ld. Advocate Mr. P. R. Jani, vehemently supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur that he has also submitted that the complainant had taken Jivan Saral Policy Plan No. 165 for a period of 10 years as per the complaint filed by the complainant and complainant had paid Rs. 1,86,840/- by way of premium with the opponent Insurance Company. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate Ms. S. R. Shelat, after issuance of the Policy in question LIC has issued circular for all Zonal Managers of LIC of India regarding action plans to address discrepancy in Policy bond Policy issue under Jivan Saral plan (Table No. 165) and as per the said circular the opponent Insurance Corporation have notice that in the Policy document issued to the complainant there has been a inadvertent Typographical error in the maturity sum assured which has been shown Rs. 2,50,000/- and as per the plan condition the correct maturity sum assured is Rs. 30,590/- and therefore, the opponent Insurance Company had written letter dated 02.09.2015 page 39 to the complainant asked the complainant to sent original Insurance Policy document to Insurance Corporation to enable to endorse the policy document with the correct maturity sum assured. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondent Insurance Corporation that after receipt of the said letter dated 02.09.2015 the complainant had not raised any objections to that effect and thereafter, on 30.04.2016 complainant served the legal notice to the Insurance Corporation she has also submitted that the Policy in question mature on 07.03.2016 and prior to that Insurance Company had sent the voucher of the full and final amount of maturity sum assured to the complainant. And till that date there was no objections raised by complainant regarding the letter dated 02.09.2015. it is further, submitted by one S. R. Shelat, that the opponent Insurance Company had written letter dated 02.09.2015 prior to the maturity of the Policy that is prior to the 07.03.2016 that the Ld. Advocate of the respondent K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 5 of 11 Insurance Company has also submitted that while letter dated 02.09.2015 Insurance Company had not change the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy but only change the amount of the maturity sum assured entitled by the complainant on account of typographical mistake Ld. Advocate one S. R. Shelat, has also submitted that in this appeal the Policy in question produced on page No. 40 to 43 issued to the complainant and blank Policy copy is also produced on page 49 to 56 and on page 49 it is specifically mentioned that in the column of maturity benefit that "In the event of the Life assured surviving the date of maturity a sum equal to maturity sum assured in force after partial surrenders if any along with the corresponding loyalty addition if any shall be payable". That the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondent has also submitted that Jivan Saral Policy is unique Policy and as per the said policy if any person dies during the subsistence of the Policy then legal heirs are entitled to get higher amount of death benefit but as per the Policy if the Policy holder survives on the date of maturity then he is entitled to get maturity sum assured on the basis of premium of Rs. 100/- as per the attached statement of calculation and he is also entitled to get additional amount by way of loyalty. It is further, submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Corporation that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 30,590/- as per the calculation stated in para 14 of the written statement on the date of maturity of the Policy for maturity sum assured i.e. Rs. 30,590/- So, the applicant is not entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- for maturity sum assured on the date of the maturity Policy as shown in the Insurance Policy. So, as per the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Corporation the complainant has no legal right to get disadvantage of the typographical mistake of the amounts shown as a maturity sum assured in the Policy. That the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Corporation has also submitted that typographical mistakes in the Policy can be rectified as and when they are notice and before the occurrence. So, here in this case also the Insurance Corporation reduced the amount of maturity sum assured from Rs. 2,50,000/- to 30,590/- vide letter dated 02.09.2015 before the date of maturity of policy i.e. 07.03.2016 and in support of the said submission the Ld. Advocate of the Insurance Company has place reliance upon the following decision of the National Commission as well as Hon'ble State Commission of Gujarat.
1. (2013) CPJ 83 (NC) Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Anil Kumar Jain.
2. Revision Petition No. 3833/2011 (NC) Virupaxappa I. Vs. The Senior Branch Manager LIC of India.
K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 6 of 113. State Commission of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, Appeal No. 3676/2012 LIC of India Vs. Shree Babubhai Veljibhai Harsod.
4. State Commission of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, Appeal No. 600/2014 Shitanshu Kiritkumar Shah Vs. LIC of India.
8. I have considered the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the appellant Mr. M. V. Patel as well as argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the respondent Ms. S. R. Shelat on behalf of P. R. Jani, I have also gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur and material on record. That the complainant had taken LIC Jivan Saral Policy from the opponent Insurance Company for the period of 10 years of monthly premium of Rs. 1,557/- bearing Policy No. 853972865 that the said Policy is commence on 07.03.2006 and the date of the maturity is 07.03.2016 That it is also transpired from the record that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,86,840/- by way of premium in 120 month to the life Insurance Corporation. That Life Insurance Corporation had written on letter dated 02.09.2015 page 39 to the complainant before the date of maturity of Policy 07.03.2016 whereby LIC has informed the complainant that LIC has notice that in the Policy document issued to the complainant there has been an inadvertent typographical error in the maturity sum assured which has been shown as Rs. 2,50,000/- as per the plan conditions the correct maturity sum assured is Rs. 30,590/- and therefore, being aggrieved by the said decision of the Life Insurance Corporation of India the complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Palanpur for getting Rs. 2,50,000/- maturity sum assured as shown in the Policy page 40. That the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Fourm, came to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured as shown in the Policy but as per the terms and conditions of the Policy and as per the letter dated 02.09.2015 of opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India complainant is entitled to get only Rs. 30,590/- plus amount of loyalty i.e. Rs. 37,387/- from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and therefore, the appellant original complainant has filed the present appeal.
9. That this state Commission has to decide as to whether the finding recorded by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Rdressal Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Consumer Complaint No. 201/2016 are correct or erroneous and accordingly the final order passed by the forum, in the Consumer Complaint No. 201/2016 requires to be quashed and set aside as per the ground stated in the appeal memo. And for that the K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 7 of 11 Commission has to considered the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the parties and also considered the evidence on record and the settled principal of law. That when the complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. Forum, that he is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured of the Policy on the date of the maturity of the Policy then the burden lies on the complainant to show that he is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- That in order to prove the said facts complainant place reliance upon the proposal form filed by the complainant before the taking the Policy which is produced on Page 19 to 22 on page 19 of the proposal forum, on the right side it is mentioned that the purpose for taking Insurance Policy is saving and protection and complainant has also place reliance upon the facts that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,86,840/- by way of premium to the opponent Corporation but merely the purpose of taking Insurance Policy is saving and protection does not prove that complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured on the date of maturity of the Policy likewise merely complainant has paid Rs. 1,86,840/- by way of premium that fact also is not enough to prove that he is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured and therefore, whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured or not that is to be decide on the basis of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the plan of the Insurance Policy.
10. That the opponent Insurance Corporation of India has place reliance upon the facts stated in the column of the Maturity benefit of the Policy page 40 wherein it is specifically mentioned that "in the event of life assured surviving the date of maturity a sum equal to maturity sum assured in force after partial surrenders if any along with the corresponding loyalty addition if any shall be payable". That means on perusal of the said facts stated in the Policy it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured as shown in the Policy. Furthermore, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy the LIC Jivan Saral Policy is a unique Policy and if any Policy holder dies during the subsistence of the Policy then legal heirs are entitled to get 250% amount of the basic premium that is legal heirs are entitled to get higher amount but if any Policy holder survives on maturity date of the Policy then he is entitled to get maturity sum assured as per Rs. 100/- basic premium as per the chart showing maturity sum assured of Policy Rs. 100/ monthly premium page 38 and on perusal of the said page No. 38 the complainant had taken the Policy in question at the age of 60 for the period of 10 years then the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 3,059/- per year and considering the basic premium of the Policy complainant K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 8 of 11 is entitled to get Rs. 30,590/- as per policy plan of opponent Insurance Corporation as against the said evidence the complainant has not produced any reliable evidence to believe that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured on the date of maturity as shown in the Policy. And complainant is only entitled to get amount of Rs. 30,590/- as maturity sum assured and amount of loyalty there on which comes to Rs. 37,387/- as stated in para 25 of the order of the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. So, according to terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as well as per plan of the Insurance Policy of LIC Jivan Saral the complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 2,50,000/- on the date of maturity as claimed in the complaint. That I have also gone through the findings recorded by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, to that effect and I do not find any illegality and perverseness in the said finding recorded by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
11. Now the next question arise as to whether when there is a typographical mistake in the Policy Life Insurance Corporation has legal right to make correction thereof in the Policy at any point of time or not. That the Ld. Advocate of the complainant has place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission reported III (2012) CPJ 250 in the case of Branch Manager of the LIC Vs. Sunilkumar Palival But on going through the same it appears that in the said case there was a change about the premium amount annual to half yearly payments but here in this case there was no such changes in the Policy. That Life Insurance Corporation has place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission reported (2013) CPJ 83 in the case of LIC Vs. Anil Jain as well as decision of Hon'ble National Commission of Revision Petition No. 3833/2011 in the case of Virupaxappa I. Vs. The Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India that in both the judgments the Hon'ble National Commission has place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.P State Forest Company Ltd. Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil appeal No. 6347/2000 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that on the basis of Typographical Mistake which has been rectified on the records of the company before the occurrence insured cannot get benefit of typographical mistake in that case insured took insurance cover for the period of 8 months where as by typographical mistake 1 year was mentioned in the Insurance Policy and insured was not entitled for compensation on account of loss caused after 8 month but within 12 month of insurance policy on the basis of typographical mistake of the insurance cover. So, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble National K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 9 of 11 Commission typographical Mistake can be rectified on the records of the corporation before the occurrence herein this case also the Policy in question expire as on 07.03.2016 and prior to that as on 02.09.2015 LIC written a Letter to the complainant that LIC notice that in the policy document issue to the complainant there has been inadvertent typographical error in the Maturity sum assured which has been shown Rs. 2,50,000/- and as per the plan conditions the correct maturity sum assured is Rs. 30,590/- so, as per my considered view the opponent Insurance Corporation has rightly reduced the amount of maturity sum assured shown in the Policy from 2,50,000/- to 30,590/- and the Ld. Forum, has also considered the same facts in the impugned judgment and order and accordingly the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, directed the opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay Rs. 37,387/- to the complainant and additional amount of loyalty and therefore, according to my considered view the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Consumer Complaint No. 201/2016 is just and proper and the finding recorded by the Ld. Forum, are based on record and settled principal of law and therefore, the same also requires to be confirmed in this appeal and accordingly the appeal filed by the appellant/original complainant is meritless which requires to be dismissed in terms of the following final order.
ORDER
1. Appeal No.688 of 2017 filed by the appellant/original complainant Mafatlal T. Padhiyar, is hereby dismissed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Consumer Complaint no. 201/2016 dated 01.09.2017 is hereby confirmed.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Appellant is directed to apply to the Account Department of the State Commission with all details of Appeal No.688 of 2017, Xerox copy of the receipt to withdraw the amount deposited in the State Commission. The office is hereby ordered to pay deposited amount with occurred interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.
K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 10 of 115. Registry is hereby instructed to send a copy of this order in PDF format by E-mail to learned District Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur, for taking necessary action.
6. Office is directed to forward a free of cost certified copy of this judgment and order to the respective parties.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 31th March 2023.
[I. D. Patel] Judicial Member.
K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 11 of 11