State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Roshanlal Sharma vs Lic on 29 October, 2019
Daily Order M. P. STATE CON0SUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 03.01.2014 passed in C. C. No.853/2011 by District Forum, Bhopal) ROSHANLAL SHARMA, S/O SHRI SHANTI SWAROOP SHARMA, R/O 17, ANKIT PARISAR, RAJHARSH COLONY, NAYAPURA, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.). .... APPELLANT. Versus REGIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, 60 D, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, MADHYA KSHETRA, BHOPAL (M.P.) .... RESPONDENT. BEFORE : HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Preetima Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. O R D E R (Passed On 29.10.2019)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:
This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short the 'Forum') in C. C. No. 853/2011 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.
2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained a policy no. 351591905 on 17.01.2000 for sum insured of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party-insurance company after paying yearly premium amount of Rs.9,716/-. As per the aforesaid policy a sum of Rs.2,629/- as monthly pension was payable from the date of maturity i.e. 17.02.2011. The complainant alleged that the opposite party-insurance company violated the agreement and offered Rs.1,579/- as monthly pension, against the promised amount of Rs.2,629/-. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint before the Forum seeking relief.
-2-3. The opposite party -insurance company resisted the complaint stating that the sum of Rs.9,716/- as premium has been given by the complainant for a period of 11 years and accordingly monthly annuity of Rs.1,579/- as per 'F' option of the policy has been released to the complainant. A sum of Rs.2,629/- as monthly annuity has been wrongly mentioned in the policy document. The opposite party-insurance company had already issued cheque for Rs.1,579/- in favour of complainant as per option 'F' but if the complainant wants to avail monthly annuity as option 'D' he can return those cheques and can avail monthly pension @ Rs.1,769/-.
4. Learned Forum dismissed the complaint holding that there was printing mistake in the policy document regarding which the complainant was duly informed. On the basis of aforesaid the complaint was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant vehemently argued that when it is clearly mentioned by the respondent in the policy document that Rs.2,629/- is the amount of monthly annuity, it is highly unfair on part of the insurance company to have given Rs.1,579/- as monthly annuity to the complainant. He argued that even if it is printing mistake, it is on part of the employees of the insurance company, regarding which the complainant was informed after a period of 11 years, at the time of payment of monthly pension. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and respondent be directed to give monthly annuity amount of Rs.2,629/- to the complainant/appellant along with compensation and cost. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in Life Insurance Corporation and Anr Vs Sunil Kumar Paliwal III (2012) CPJ 250 (NC) and the decisions of the Supreme Court in His Holiness Digya Darshan Rajendra Ram Doss Vs Devendra Doss (1973) 1 SCC 14 & in Civil Appeal No.1128 OF 2019 M/S Twenty First Century Media Private Limited Vs New India Assurance Company Limited decided on 25 January, 2019.
-3-7. Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-insurance company argued that the complainant/appellant is entitled for Rs.1,579/- as per option 'F' availed by him. The policy holder has to exercise the annuity option at least 6 months before vesting date of policy and the same was not exercised by him and therefore LIC selected option 'F' for policy holder, the only option which had a provision for return of capital sum on death of annuitant. If he is not satisfied with the aforesaid option, he can also obtain monthly pension @ Rs.1,769/- as per option 'D', after returning the cheques, which were already issued to him. The sum of Rs.2,629/- as monthly annuity is wrongly printed in the policy due to computer error. When the aforesaid fact came in knowledge of the respondent-insurance company, they informed the complainant/appellant in this regard. It is obvious that the pension amount erroneously printed on the policy document works out to about 18% interest p.a. on the capital sum which is highly improbable under any scenario. She further argued that for the sake of arguments even if it is presumed that had there been mention of monthly annuity payable less, than the actual amount then also the respondent-insurance company was under obligation to pay actual amount to the complainant/appellant as against the printed amount. There is no malafide intention of the respondent-insurance company in the instant matter. The LIC should not be penalized because of typographical error. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 377 OF 2011 LIC of India & Anr Vs Raj Nandan Jha decided on 13th August, 2012 and in Life Insruance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs Anil Kumar Jain II (2013) CPJ 83 (NC).
8. The complainant/appellant has alleged that the respondent insurance company has given less monthly annuity amount than the one mentioned in the policy. The respondent insurance company has made a submission that Rs.2,629/- has been wrongly printed on the policy as monthly annuity. The complainant/appellant is entitled for Rs.1,579/- per month as per option 'F' or -4- Rs.1,769/- as per option 'D'. The respondent insurance company has given tabular annuity rates for different age groups of the Life Assured on vesting of annuity, with the payment option available to annuitants and a calculation chart for monthly annuity instalment, payable.
9. The respondent insurance company has clarified by way of calculation that since the age of investor is 57 years on vesting of annuity, the pension payable per annum for National Cash Option of Rs.1,000/- for option 'F' is 103.70. The respondent insurance company has given calculation of the annual pension payable on the basis of Total Capital Sum of Rs.1,82,500/- (as mentioned in the policy), from which the monthly annuity comes out to be Rs.1,579/- Admittedly, the respondent insurance company has offered this amount to the complainant/appellant. The respondent insurance company, as an alternative is ready to offer a sum of Rs.1,769/- as monthly annuity as per option 'D'. But it is evidently clear, on the basis of the calculation method that Rs.2,629/- as monthly annuity is nowhere in the options for the age of investor of the complainant's/appellant's category. This is certainly a typographical error on part of the respondent insurance company in the policy.
10. The complainant/appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sunil Kumar Paliwal III (2012) CPJ 250 NC and has submitted that even if there was typographical mistake, as claimed by the respondent insurance company, the same was committed by the employees of the respondent and it cannot be used to the disadvantage of the complainant/appellant by unilaterally changing the terms of contract. However, in the instant matter, it is evident from the calculation regard annuity, that the monthly payable annuity has been misprinted on the policy. It is not the case where the respondent has unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the judgment cited by the complainant/appellant is of no significance regarding providing any relief to him. We find that the other judgments -5- referred by learned counsel for the complainant/appellant are not applicable to the case in hand. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, the amount offered by the insurance company as per option 'F' or else as per option 'D' cannot be termed as inappropriate, which if not paid, shall be given to him, as per terms and conditions of the specific option.
11. However, we are also of a view that if there was typographical error in the original bond issued by the Life Insurance Corporation Of India and was not noticed for long years, this itself amounts to deficiency in service on part of the respondent insurance company. Evidently, this error was noticed at the time of payment to the complainant/appellant.
12. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, the complainant/appellant is entitled for compensation on account of aforesaid deficiency in service on part of the respondent-insurance company.
13. In the result, we set-aside the impugned order and partly allow the appeal and direct the respondent insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant/appellant within a period of six weeks from today. The respondent insurance company shall also bear cost of this appeal which is quantified at Rs.3,000/-, to be payable to the complainant/appellant in the aforesaid time frame.
(DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK) (PRABHAT PARASHAR) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER