State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager vs Dr.Tarakeshwari.V.Shetty on 25 June, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1824/2017 ( Date of Filing : 04 Sep 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 04/08/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/173/2014 of District Dakshina Kannada) 1. The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bantwal Branch, Jeevan Jyothi, Shanthi Angadi, B.C.Road, Bantwal-574219 Rep. by Manager (Legal & HPF), LIC of India, Divisional Office, J.C.Road, Bengaluru-560002 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Dr.Tarakeshwari.V.Shetty W/o Dr. Vishnu Kumar Shetty, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Doctor, R/a Daya Dental Clinic, Shama complex, Madnthyar, Banthangadi Tq. PIN-574224 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 25 Jun 2024 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2024 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1824/2017 The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bantwal Branch, Jeevan Jyothi, Shanti Angadi, B.C. Road, Bantwal 574 219. Represented by : Manager (Legal & HPF), LIC of India, Divisional Office, J.C. Road, Bengaluru 560 002. (By Sri H.N. Kasal, Advocate) ......Appellant/s V/s Dr. Tarakeshwari.V.Shetty, W/o Dr. Vishnu Kumar Shetty, Aged about 38 years, Occ : Doctor, R/o Daya Dental Clinic, Shama Complex, Madanthyar, Belthangadi Taluk 574 224. (By Dr. Tarakeshwari .V. Shetty, Advocate) .....Respondent/s ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.04.08.2017 passed in CC.No.173/2014 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore.
2. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the complainant had obtained Jeevan Saral Policy bearing No.722853188 by paying premium amount of Rs.765/- quarterly payment. At the time of issuance of policy, by typographical error the maturity amount reflected as Rs.62,500/- instead of Rs.27,802/-. This appellant after maturity had paid the amount of Rs.27,802/- as basic amount and Rs.6,950/- as loyalty addition. After receipt of maturity amount, the complainant by taking an advantage of typographical error had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service and sought for payment of balance amount. The District Commission without considering an error made by this appellant had allowed the complaint and directed to pay the balance amount with interest at 8% p.a. infact the policy issued for Rs.27,802/-. It is only a mistake and not maturity amount. The maturity amount by oversight mentioned as Rs.62,500/-, but, the District Commission failed to appreciate the said fact and allowed the complaint. The entire maturity amount paid by this appellant was without any delay or any inconvenience. Hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed y the District Commission in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard the arguments of both counsels.
4. Perused the appeal memo, certified copy of the impugned order and documents, it is noticed that a similar policy issued to other persons wherein the chart had disclosed the maturity of the policy with age prescribed. Admittedly, the policy is issued in favour of complainant is Jeevan Saral Policy and a sum assured is Rs.27,802/- as per the chart. By oversight or by typographical error, the assured amount mentioned as Rs.62,500/-. The said mistake was only noticed when the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission. Anyhow, the annual maturity amount as per the policy and chart was given to the complainant. We are of the opinion that if any typographical error found in the policy, that has to be rectified when the policy is in force itself. Here after filing the complaint, the said mistake was noticed and rectified for which we are of the opinion that it is a clear case of deficiency in service in not rectifying the mistakes when the policy is in force itself anyhow maturity amount was paid by this appellant. The District Commission made an error in allowing the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the balance amount after deducting the amount already paid. When the complainant is not entitled for any such assured amount when there is mistake, the District Commission ought to disallow the claim for balance amount and could have allowed the complaint by imposing only compensation for deficiency in service, but, the District Commission not acted in accordance with Law. Hence, the Order passed by the District Commission requires to be modified. Hence, the following;
ORDER The Appeal is disposed-of.
The Order dt.04.08.2017 passed in CC.No.173/2014 is hereby modified as under;
The Opposite Party is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses for deficiency in service within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
The amount of Rs.15,000/- out of deposited shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant and balance amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be refunded to the appellant by obtaining proper identification.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER