State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Limited vs Balu Ram on 18 November, 2021
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.664 of 2019
Date of institution : 09.10.2019
Reserved on : 08.11.2021
Date of decision : 18.11.2021
1. Life Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Divisional
Officer, Amritsar through Divisional Manager.
2. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., Jeevan Parkash
Building, 4-5, Distt. Shopping Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
3. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., Jeevan Jyoti
Building, near Gaushala, Abohar.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Balu Ram aged 58 years son of Sh.Hukma Ram, VPO, Nihal Khera
Tehsil and Distt. Fazilka (M.No.9417489344), Punjab.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated
19.07.2019 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum (now
Commission), Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:-
For the appellants : Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : None First Appeal No.664 of 2019 2 MRS.URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER Life Insurance Company Limited-appellants have filed the present appeal against the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, "the District Commission"), Ferozepur, whereby the complaint of Balu Ram- complainant has been allowed, by directing the appellant Company to pay Rs.42,682/- as remaining sum insured, with interest @ 9% per annum from 20.04.2018 i.e. date of maturity till realization, in addition Rs.5,000/- as consolidated compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant/respondent took an Insurance Policy bearing No.472288316 namely "LICs Jeevan Saral (with profit) Policy" assuring that if the complainant would pay premium of Rs.510/- per month then after maturity period i.e. April, 2018, the LIC would pay a total amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as maturity sum assured to the complainant. In the month of November 2007, the said policy of the complainant was transferred by OP No.2 from Amritsar to Abohar with OP No.3 according to his written request dated 12.11.2007. Though the complainant had deposited all the premium regularly, yet on 20.04.2018, the OPs only deposited an amount of Rs.82,318/- in his Bank account No.2706000100041168 in Punjab National Bank, Abohar by NEFT instead of depositing the agreed amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. No reason had been deposited by the OPs as to why the entire amount of maturity of his policy was not paid to First Appeal No.664 of 2019 3 him. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Commission for redressal of his grievance.
3. OPs/appellants contested the case by filing joint written reply, pleading that the date of commencement of the policy was 20.04.2006 and date of maturity was 20.04.2018 and the monthly premium under the main plan was Rs.499/-. In addition, Rs.10/- for double accident benefit was charged from the complainant under the policy in question, which was applicable in case of accidental death of the life assured. It has been further pleaded that at the time of purchasing the policy by the life assured on 20.04.2006, he was aged 47 years. As per circular of LICs Jeevan Saral Plan containing the chart of calculation of maturity sum assured was Rs.57,565/-. In the said circular which forms the basis of calculation of maturity sum assured per Rs.100/- monthly premium at the time of 47 years, the maturity benefit sum assured for the terms of 12 years was shown as Rs.11,513/-. Accordinlgy, for a monthly premium of Rs.500/-, the maturity benefit sum assured comes out to Rs.57,565/-. It had been further pleaded that the maturity benefit sum assured printed on policy bond was wrong and computer programming mistake and actually this was the death benefit sum assured payable on death. Further, it had also been pleaded that the complainant/respondent was informed vide registered letter dated 29.02.2016 that maturity sum assured was wrongly printed on the policy bond, so there was a typographical error in the policy bond. However, on the maturity, the complainant First Appeal No.664 of 2019 4 completed the formalities and maturity sum assured amounting to Rs.57,565/- alongwith loyalty additions amounting to Rs.24,753/- totaling amounting to Rs.82,318/- was deposited in the bank account of the complainant by NEFT. But, the District Consumer Commission disagreed with the plea of the OPs and allowed the complaint by awarding the aforesaid relief to the complainant.
4. The OPs/appellants have filed the present appeal against the impugned order before us reiterating their same pleas as raised before the District Consumer Commission. None appeared on behalf of the complainant/respondent at the time of arguments.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs/appellants and have also gone through the record carefully.
6. The main contention of the appellant Company is that some typing mistake in the policy cannot give rise to contractual obligation of LIC to pay the amount. To give benefit of typing mistake if under the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was entitled to the same, hence the amount payable under the policy which is a legal contract is only as per the terms and conditions of the policy and not beyond. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titles as "Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.", reported in JT 2009(5) SC579 and "General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain & Ors." reported in AIR 1996 SC 1644, to plead that the court should interpret the words in which contract if the parties have not made it First Appeal No.664 of 2019 5 themselves. On this basis, the appellants plead for the dismissal of the complaint by setting aside the order of the District Commission.
7. After thoroughly considering the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the reliance placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case, because the case in hand is not a matter in dispute regarding interpretation of the terms and conditions but the appellants only want to take shelter of their own mistake typographical or otherwise. The policy document as well as the premium receipts issued by the appellant Company regularly on the deposit of installments clearly show the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and not any other amount. Otherwise also, for the mistake of the LIC, the consumer cannot be made to suffer.
8. Resultantly, we do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well considered order passed by the District Consumer Commission and the directions issued to the appellants for granting the relief to the respondent are upheld by dismissing the appeal with no order as to cost.
9. The appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal and sum of Rs.28,444/- was also deposited by the appellants, vide receipt dated 30.10.2019, in compliance of order dated 11.10.2019 passed by this Commission. The said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall First Appeal No.664 of 2019 6 be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
10. Vide order dated 11.10.2019, the delay was ordered to be condoned, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as cost to be deposited in the Registry for its payment to respondent/complainant, as and when he appears. In compliance of said order, the appellants had deposited the said amount of Rs.3,000/-, vide receipt No.1822509 dated 24.10.2019. This amount shall be remitted by the Registry to the respondent/complainant, by way of crossed cheque/demand draft, if not already remitted.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and the pandemic of COVID-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (MRS.URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER November 18, 2021 (Rupinder 2)