State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sundeep Sharma vs Lic Of India on 17 November, 2023
FA/200/2016 MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA VS. LIC OF INDIA D.O.D.: 17.11.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 05.04.2016
Date of hearing: 22.05.2023
Date of Decision: 17.11.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO-200/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA,
S/O SHRI R.P. SHARMA,
BL 101, HARI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI 110064.
(Through: Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. L.I.C. OF INDIA,
THROUGH THE MANAGER,
BRANCH NO. 327, ASAF ALI ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110002.
(Through: Mr. Mohit Kumar Auluck, Advocate)
2. MR. R.K. SAWHNEY,
16/5, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR,
NEW DELHI 110005.
...Respondents
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 9
FA/200/2016 MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA VS. LIC OF INDIA D.O.D.: 17.11.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: None for the Appellant.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Auluck, counsel for the Respondent.
PER : HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission records are as under:
"The complainant had purchased a policy of insurance from OP1 through OP2, who is its registered agent. The sum assured under the policy was Rs. 12,50,000/- The term of the policy was for a period of 30 years with an annual premium of Rs. 46,229/-. The commencement date of the policy was agreed to be 24.11.2011. The complainant had undergone a medical checkup and had thereafter, deposited the first premium of Rs 46,229/- which was duly accepted by OPI. The policy documents were received by the complainant with the aforesaid terms. The complainant had also deposited the second year's premium of Rs. 46,229/- but before he could deposit the premium of the third year, he had received an e-mail from OP1 that he had to deposit an extra premium for Rs. 7750/- along with the arrears of the last two years. The complainant took up the matter with the Ops but to no effect. OP1 had also refused to receive the premium of the fourth year on the pretext that it was less than what was actually DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 9 FA/200/2016 MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA VS. LIC OF INDIA D.O.D.: 17.11.2023 due. The complainant has therefore, approached this forum with the following reliefs:-
(i) The OP1 be directed to restore the policy taken by the complainant with all the benefits attached to it.
(ii) Keep on accepting the premium on the basis of agreed terms i.e. Rs 46,229/- per annum.
(iii) Allow cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- for causing mental agony, tension, anxiety etc. to the complainant a sum of Rs. 22,000/- towards legal expenses and
(iv) Allow any other relief which this Hon'ble forum deemed fit and proper under facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite parties."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 31.10.2015, whereby it held as under:
"We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record. The learned counsel for OP1 has pressed into service a judgment of the National Commission titled as LIC V/s Anil Kumar Jain (RP 2802 of 2011) decided on 11.2.2013 wherein in similar circumstances, the National commission had allowed the LIC to rectify the typographical mistake and charge premium payable on the term table. Para 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
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 DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 9 FA/200/2016 MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA VS. LIC OF INDIA D.O.D.: 17.11.2023 authorized 79-30. Learned 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 Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of the words insurance, 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, insurer indemnify undertakes the to 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 Hon'ble Apex Court held that on the basis of typographical mistake which has been rectified in the records DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 9 FA/200/2016 MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA VS. LIC OF INDIA D.O.D.: 17.11.2023 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 and insured the insurance policy 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. Rs.2,50,000/-. 25,00,000/- to 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 complainant's father, who when 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.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 9 FA/200/2016 MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA VS. LIC OF INDIA D.O.D.: 17.11.2023
A perusal of the aforesaid paras in the judgment cited above gives no manner of doubt that OPI was within its rights to seek payment of the premium as per the plan term table. Since a higher premium was payable in the present case according to the plan term chosen by the complainant, the complainant cannot insist on payment of a lesser premium on the basis of the policy bond received by him. The typographical error which had crept in the policy bond can be corrected by OP1. We, therefore, see no merits in this complaint. The same is hereby dismissed."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present appeal, contending that the District Commission has erred in dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant before it. The counsel further submits that the District Commission has wrongly relied upon the relevant judgments filed by the Respondent no. 1 before it. Pressing the aforesaid contention, the Appellant prayed for the setting aside of the impugned order dated 31.10.2015.
4. The Respondent no. 1, through its reply, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said impugned order. On the other hand, Respondent no. 2 failed to file the reply to the present Appeal till date.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
6. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant before it.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 9 FA/200/2016 MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA VS. LIC OF INDIA D.O.D.: 17.11.2023
8. From the chronology of the events, we find that the policy in question has been issued by the Respondent no. 1 through Respondent no. 2 in the year 2011 for a period of 30 years with an annual premium of Rs. 46,229/- and the sum insured under the said policy was Rs. 12,50,000/-. At the time of issuance of policy, the Appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 46,229/- for the first year and subsequently paid an amount of Rs, 46,229/- for the second year. However, before paying the third year premium, the Appellant received an Email and letter from the Respondent no. 1 stating that the Appellant needs to deposit an amount of Rs. 23,250/- for extra premium including the arrear for the last two years. The Appellant has taken the plea that the District Commission had wrongly relied upon the Judgment referred by the Respondent no. 1 at the time of written arguments before that Commission.
9. Further, from the perusal of impugned order, we find that the District Commission has relied upon the Revision Petition no. 2802 of 2011 titled as "Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Anil Kumar Jain" decided on 11.02.2013, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission while dealing with the similar issue has held as follows:
"8. 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 complainant's 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.
9. 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.
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 9 FA/200/2016 MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA VS. LIC OF INDIA D.O.D.: 17.11.2023
10. 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. 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."
10. From the aforesaid dicta of Hon'ble National Commission, it is clear that the typographical Mistake can be rectified on the records of the corporation before the occurrence. Since, in this case also the Policy in question will expire in the year 2041 (i.e. 30 years from the year 2011) and prior to that as on 28.05.2013, 11.06.2013, 17.06.2013, 18.06.2013, 27.07.2013, 23.05.2014, 17.06.2014 and lastly 27.06.2014, the Respondent no. 1 (LIC) has written the Letters to the Appellant/Complainant that Respondent no. 1 noticed that in the policy document issued to the Appellant/Complainant there has been inadvertent typographical error in the annual premium paid for the policy which has been shown as Rs. 46,229/- and as per the sum assured of the policy, the correct annual premium amount turned out to be Rs.53,979/-.
11. Therefore, in our considered view, the Respondent no. 1 has rightly demanded the arrears as per their calculations from the Appellant for the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 and the Ld. Commission, has also considered the same facts in the impugned order. Accordingly, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central) dismissed the complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant before it as the same was filed without any merits.
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 9 FA/200/2016 MR. SUNDEEP SHARMA VS. LIC OF INDIA D.O.D.: 17.11.2023
12. In view of the forgoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 31.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, 5th Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
13. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties as well as forwarded to the corresponding E-mail address available on the record i.e. [email protected] (Appellant) and [email protected] (Respondent).
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER(GENERAL) Pronounced On:
17.11.2023
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 9