National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Anil Kumar Jain on 11 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2011 (From the order dated 23.05.2011 in Appeal No. 130/2010 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) Life Insurance Corporation of India Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office No.1, Kutchery Road, Ajmer Rajasthan. Also at: Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur 302 005. Also at: Life Insurance Corporation of India] H-39, New Asiatic Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi 1100 001 Petitioner/OP Versus Anil Kumar Jain S/o Shri Hasti Mal Jain, Beawar Road, Near Dorai Railway Crossing, P.O. Dorai, Ajmer (Rajasthan) Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Bhalla, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr.Hastimal Jain, Auth. Rep. (father of Respondent) PRONOUNCED ON 11th February, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 130 of 2010 LIC Vs. Anil Kumar Jain by which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondents father obtained insurance Policy No.18117446 under term table 79-30 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 1.3.1988. For first five years, premium was payable @ Rs.1486.50 per year, for next five years premium was payable @ Rs.1,608/- per year and for next twenty years premium was payable @ Rs.1779.50 per year and insured amount was also to be increased accordingly from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. Complainant was depositing premium amount regularly but vide letter dated 15.12.2007, OP asked complainant to deposit Rs.22,445/- as premium which were deposited less. Complainant denied demand. Then, OP vide letter dated 28.3.2008 asked complainant either to deposit Rs.24,275/- or send acceptance for insured sum of Rs.50,000/- in term table 14-30. As complainant did not accept this proposal, OP vide letter dated 29.4.2008 intimated to the complainant that his policy has been converted under term table 14-30 in place of term table 79-30 and refunded Rs.5,731/- through a cheque. Complainant returned cheque and made complaint to Sr. Divisional Manager of OP and later on filed complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of OP with a prayer to OP not to change term plan.
OP-petitioner contested complaint and submitted that as per terms and conditions of policy, premium was also to be increased in proportion to increase of sum assured but by mistake, premium amount was not increased and when this mistake was noticed, complainant was asked to deposit premium accordingly but as complainant refused to deposit premium, his term plan was changed and there was no deficiency on the part of OP; hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to receive premium as per policy issued for term table 79-30 and also maturity amount accordingly. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents father (authorised representative of respondent) at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by typographical error, less amount was shown as premium payable in the term table 79-30 and as the respondent did not agree to make revised payment of premium; accordingly the petitioner had not committed any deficiency in revising term table and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission also committed error in dismissing appeal without assigning any reasons; hence, petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, father of the respondent submitted that parties are bound by the contract and as complainant was paying premium as shown in term table 79-30, petitioner had no authority to change it into term table 14-30 and order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law which has been upheld by learned State Commission; hence, petition may be dismissed.
5. It is admitted case that father of the complainant obtained life insurance policy under term table 79-30 for the benefit of complainant from OP. It is also not disputed that complainants father was also employee of OP. It is also not disputed that complainant was making payment regularly as shown in term table 79-30. It is also not disputed that on audit objection, it was revealed that by wrong calculations, less amount of premium receivable has been shown after 5 years and after 10 years. It is also not disputed that OP asked the complainant to make payment of Rs.22,445/- to continue this term table. It is also not disputed that complainant denied to make payment and in such circumstances, OP changed term table to Rs.50,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/- and refunded excess premium by cheque which was not accepted by the complainant. Respondent has nowhere stated that demand raised for short premium in term table 79-30 by notice dated 15.12.2007 is not correct except to the extent that it was made after 20 years.
6. The short question which is to be decided in this revision petition is whether OP can rectify typographical mistake and charge more premium, which is payable on term table 79-30. Learned authorised representative of respondent submitted that petitioner cannot change terms and conditions of policy and placed reliance on 2010 (7) Supreme 83 M /s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in which Honble Apex Court observed as under:
24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.
7. We agree to the principle enunciated in this judgment but this citation does not help to the respondent as petitioner is not deleting or substituting any word(s) of the policy but is rectifying only typographical mistake committed by employee of the petitioner.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Civil Appeal No. 6347 of 2000 H.P. State Forest Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in which Honble Apex Court held that on the basis of typographical mistake which has been rectified in the records of the Company before the occurrence, insured cannot get benefit of typographical mistake. In that case insured took insurance cover for a period of 8 months whereas by typographical mistake, one year was mentioned in the insurance policy and insured was not held entitled for compensation on account of loss caused after 8 months but within 12 months of insurance policy on the basis of typographical mistake in the insurance cover. He also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Original Petition No. 178 of 1995 Satya Deo Malviya Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.
in which typographical mistake was allowed to be rectified after 5 years and sum assured was reduced from Rs. 25,00,000/-
to Rs.2,50,000/-. In R.P. No.377 of 2011 LIC & Anr. Vs. Raj Nandan Jha, this Commission vide its order dated 13.8.2012 allowed correction of typographical mistake after 8 years and reduced sum assured from Rs.2,39,163/- to Rs.1,56,000/- and pension amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,560/-.
9. In the light of aforesaid citations it becomes clear that typographical mistakes can be rectified as and when they are noticed and OP has not committed any error in asking complainant to make payment of premium to continue old term plan, particularly when complainants father, who was employee of petitioner must be aware that premium shown in term table 79-30 is not correct, and on refusal by the complainant, OP has not committed any error in revising term plan.
10. Learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal without any speaking order and revision petition is liable to be accepted.
11. As typographical mistake has been noticed in audit objection after about 20 years, we deem it proper to allow the complainant to make payment of premium, which was less paid by him up till, without interest to continue old term table 79-30 and pay further premium as advised by OP/petitioner, otherwise complaint shall stand dismissed.
12. As observed above, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 23.5.2011 passed by learned State Commission and order of District Forum dated 17.12.2009 are set aside and complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k