State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Niranjan H. Divecha vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 19 January, 2017
1
[CC/13/46]
BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
CONSUMER COMLAINT NO. CC/13/46
Shri. Niranjan H. Divecha
R/at- F/1304, Shanti Apartments,
Mathurads Extn. Road,
Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400067.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India
Having Branch Office
LIC Branch 898,
At Jeevan vihar 5th & 6th floor,
75, Bombay Samachar Marg,
Mumbai 400023.
2. The Life Insurance Corporation of
India
Through CRM, having Central Office
at-
Mumbai Divisional - IV,
'Yogakshema',
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai 400021.
3. The Chairman
Life Insurance Corporation of India
'Yogakshema',
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai 400021.
...........Opposite Party(s)
2
[CC/13/46]
BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Bhangale, President
Hon'ble Mr. D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member
For the
Complainant:
Advocate Shri. Deval K. Anja
For the
Opposite Parties:
Advocate Shri.A.S.Vidyarthi
JUDGMENT
Per - Hon'ble Mr. D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member
[1] Complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for getting declaration that the policy document is final and binding upon the Opposite Parties and to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Notional Cash Option of Rs.3,90,000/- and monthly pension of Rs.3996.90 along with compensation and costs of litigation. Complainant submitted that he had taken 'Jeevan Suraksha Policy with terminal bonus and with life cover' from the Opposite Parties. The Policy was bearing No.901586185. Same was commencing from 14/1/1997 for a period of 16 yrs. with annual premium of Rs.9262/- and Notional Cash Option Rs.3,90,000/- and amount of Monthly Pension was Rs.3996.90. Complainant submitted that he had paid the First 3 [CC/13/46] Premium as per receipt No.898/NB/TPP dt.12/2/1997 for premium of Rs.9262/- He submitted that thereafter the said policy was in force and he was regularly paying amount of premium each year and the policy was in force continuously. He submitted that on 16/6/2012 he received letter from the Opposite Parties for choosing pension option. He submitted that at that time, he came to know that the Opposite Parties have wrongly mentioned amount of Notional Cash Option and monthly annuity being Rs.3,89,979/- and Rs.3825/- respectively. He submitted that the amount mentioned in the letter was not as per the amount mentioned in the policy. He submitted that being aggrieved by the same, he contacted the Branch Manager of the Opposite Parties and had also intimated about the same to him by e-mail. He submitted that as per the letter given by the Opposite Parties there was difference of Rs.21/- in Notional Cash Option and the monthly pension was reduced by Rs.171.90. He submitted that thereafter he had made continuous correspondence with the Opposite Parties. However, the Opposite Parties failed to make correction in their letter. He submitted that ultimately he issued legal Notice to the Opposite Parties through Advocate on 6/12/2012. He submitted that although Opposite Parties have received that Notice they have not complied the same and hence he has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties.
[2] Opposite Parties contested the same by filing their written version on record. They submitted that the transaction in respect of policy was in 4 [CC/13/46] between complainant and Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. Opposite Party No.3 - Chairman of L.I.C. is not personally involved in the transaction. Hence, he is not necessary party to the proceeding and he should be deleted from the proceeding. They submitted that the complainant had obtained policy under plan 122-16 (Jeevan Suraksha Policy with terminal bonus and with life cover). They submitted that initially complainant had applied for annuity of Rs.4,000/- for which Notional Cash Option was of Rs.4,07,500/-. For that purpose Opposite Parties had called for ECG of complainant. They submitted that thereafter complainant had given letter to the Opposite Parties to reduce the Sum Assured to Rs.1,95,000/-. Hence, the amount of sum assured was reduced to Rs.1,95,000/- and consequently the amount of Notional Cash Option had come to Rs.3,90,000/- and monthly annuity had come to Rs.3825/-. They submitted that at the time of preparation of policy bond the amount of Notional Cash Option of Rs.3,90,000/- was correctly printed, however the annuity amount was not changed from Rs.3996.90 to Rs.3825/- therein. They submitted that however complainant is entitled to get the amount was per correct calculation of amount as per the plan chosen by him. They submitted that the complainant cannot take advantage of typographical mistake that had taken place while printing the Insurance Policy. They submitted that however they came to know about this mistake when they issued letter in respect of option of annuity to the complainant. Hence, they submitted that they could not rectify 5 [CC/13/46] the mistake in the policy earlier. However, they submitted that complainant is not entitled to get the amount as claimed by him. Hence, they submitted that claim of complainant be dismissed.
[3] From the facts and circumstance of the case following points arise for our determination. We have recorded our findings on them for the reasons stated herein below-
Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether complainant is a 'consumer'? In the affirmative
2 Whether there is deficiency in service In the negative
rendered by the Opposite Party ?
3 Whether the complainant is entitled to In the negative
get monthly pension of Rs.3996.90 as
mentioned in the policy ?
4 What order ? As per final order
REASONS
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-
[4] Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence on record and has
also submitted brief notes of written argument. Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of Shri. Pradip C. Sukale on their behalf and have also filed brief notes of written argument. Heard Ld. Advocate appearing for complainant. He has submitted that complainant had taken 'Jeevan Suraksha Policy with Terminal Bonus and with life cover' from the Opposite Parties. He submitted that 6 [CC/13/46] accordingly Opposite Parties issued policy bearing No.901586185 to the complainant. It was commencing from 14/01/1997 for period of 16 yrs. having annual premium of Rs.9262/-. He submitted that as per this policy the Notional Cash Option was of Rs.3,90,000/- and amount of monthly pension was of Rs.3996.90. He submitted that Opposite Parties had issued policy to the complainant and all these facts are mentioned in that policy. He submitted that complainant was regularly paying the annual premium till maturity of the policy. Hence, he submitted that the policy issued by the Opposite Parties to the complainant has become final and hence complainant is entitled to get the amount as mentioned in the policy. He submitted that after maturity of the policy complainant received letter dt.8/6/2012 on 16/6/2012 in respect of choosing the pension option. At that time complainant came to know that amount of Notional Cash Option of Rs.3,89,979/- and amount of monthly annuity of Rs.3825/- has been wrongly mentioned in that letter. He had submitted that he had brought this fact to the notice of the Officers of the Opposite Parties and also given notice to the Opposite Parties in that respect. However, they had not paid the amount as agreed to the complainant. Hence, complainant has filed this complaint. He submitted that complainant is entitled to get the amount as mentioned in the Insurance Policy.
[5] Heard Ld. Advocate appearing for the Opposite Parties. He submitted that Opposite Party No.3 is the Chairman of L.I.C. He is made party 7 [CC/13/46] to the proceeding in his personal capacity. However, he is not personally involved in the transaction and he is not necessary party to the proceeding. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are only liable in respect of policy of complainant. He submitted that complainant had taken 'Jeevan Suraksha Policy with terminal bonus and with life cover' from the Opposite Parties as per Table 122-16. He submitted that initially complainant had applied for annuity of Rs.4,000/- for which Notional Cash Option was Rs.4,07,500/-. For that purpose Opposite parties had called for ECG of complainant. However, thereafter complainant had submitted letter to the Opposite Parties to reduce the amount of sum assured to Rs.1,95,000/-. Consequently Notional Cash Option would be Rs.3,90,000/- and monthly annuity would be Rs.3825/-. He submitted that at the time of preparation of policy, the revised Notional Cash Option of Rs.3,90,000/- was correctly printed, however, the annuity amount was not changed from Rs.3996.90 to Rs.3825/-. He submitted that it is typographical mistake that was committed by the concerned clerk while preparing the policy. He submitted that however the complainant cannot take benefit of this typographical mistake which was committed while preparing policy. He submitted that the complainant is entitled to get the amount as per the plan chosen by him. He submitted that at the time of giving option letter to the complainant opposite parties had mentioned correct amount as per the policy in the letter. He submitted that accordingly complainant has to give option and 8 [CC/13/46] accept the amount. Hence, he submitted that complainant is not entitled to get the amount as mentioned in the policy. For that purpose he relied on the ruling of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi given in Revision Petition No. 2802 of 2011 decided on 11/2/2013, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 140 : [2013] NCDRC 124, between L.I.C. of India v/s Anil Kumar Jain s/o Shri. Hasti Mal Jain. In this ruling the Hon'ble National Commission held that typographical mistakes in insurance policy can be rectified as and when they are noticed.
[6] We have perused record of case and documents filed on record. On perusal of the same it has become clear that complainant had taken 'Jeevan Suraksha Policy with terminal bonus and with life cover' under plan 122-16 from the Opposite Parties. Policy had terminal bonus with life cover. It appears that Opposite Parties had issued policy to the complainant. At that time it was mentioned in the policy that amount of notional cash option will be of Rs.3,90,000/- and amount of monthly pension will be Rs.3996.90. It appears that complainant had regularly paid the installments and policy was in force till its maturity. It appears that on maturity of policy opposite parties had give letter dt.8/6/2012 to the complainant for choosing pension option. However, at that time Opposite parties had mentioned the amount of Notional Cash option of Rs.3,89,979/- and amount of monthly annuity was Rs.3825/-. Therefore there was difference of amount of Notional Cash Option of Rs.21/- and in monthly 9 [CC/13/46] pension of Rs.171.90/-. However, it appears that complainant had initially applied for getting annuity of Rs.4,000/- for which Notional Cash Option was of Rs.4,07,500/-. Complainant was required to give ECG. Thereafter, complainant submitted a letter to the Opposite Parties to reduce sum assured to Rs.1,95,000/-Accordingly, Opposite Parties had reduced the same and consequently amount of Notional Cash Option had come to Rs.3,90,000/- and monthly annuity of Rs.3825/-. It appears that accordingly the initial policy prepared was corrected. At that time amount of Notional Cash Option has been correctly written as Rs.3,90,000/-. However, amount of monthly annuity remains to be changed from Rs.3996.90 to Rs.3825/-. Hence, it has become clear that while preparing the policy there was typographical mistake in correcting the amount of monthly annuity amount. In view of the ruling cited above, complainant is not entitled to take benefit of such typographical mistake. Complainant is entitled to get the amount as per the plan chosen by him. As complainant had chosen plan of 122-16 for sum assured of Rs.1,95,000/-, he will be entitled to get the amount of Notional Cash Option of Rs.3,90,000/- and monthly annuity of Rs.3825/-. It appears that Opposite Parties realized this mistake while issuing option letter on 8/6/2012. Hence, they had mentioned correct amount as per the policy in that letter. Hence, we are of the view that the letter given by the Opposite Parties to the complainant to exercise option for payment of pension is correct as per the plan. Accordingly, complainant has to 10 [CC/13/46] give the option and accept the amount Under such circumstances, we are of the view that although complainant is a 'consumer' he failed to prove that there is deficiency of service by opposite parties and he is entitled to get the amount as mentioned in the policy. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant is to be dismissed. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative and point Nos. 2 and 3 in the negative and pass following order-
ORDER
1] Consumer Complaint is dismissed.
2] Parties to bear their own costs.
3] One set of complaint compilation be retained and rest be
returned to the complainant.
Certified copy of order be furnished to both the parties free of cost. Pronounced and dictated on 19th January, 2017 [JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [D.R.SHIRASAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER rsc