National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Lic Of India And Anr. vs Raj Nandan Jha on 13 August, 2012
This revision petition is against the order dated 14 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 377 OF 2011 [Against the order dated 14.09.2010 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna in Appeal No. 389 of 2003] 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Raxaul (Main Road) Branch District East Champaran 2. Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Raxaul (Main Road) Branch District East Champaran Petitioners versus Raj Nandan Jha S/o Late Braj Nandan Jha Mohalla Near Sri Ganesh Mahabir High School Ramgarhwa, Post Office Ramgarhwa District East Champaran Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr. Amitabh Marwah, Advocate For the Respondent NEMO Pronounced on 13th August, 2012 O R D E R ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition is against the order dated 14.09.2000 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, the State Commission) in first appeal no. 389 of 2003. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent/complainant against the order dated 14.07.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Motihari (in short, the District Forum) in complaint case no. 194 of 2001 by which the District Forum had dismissed the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant (respondent in this petition) before the District Forum was that he had obtained a Jeevan Dhara annuity policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, opposite party (OP) in December 1989. The annual premium for this policy was Rs.10,788.50. The policy document issued to the complainant showed the entitlement of monthly annuity of Rs. 2,000/- and the Give (lumpsum payout) amount of Rs.2 lakh. The complainant continued to pay the annual premium till December 1997. However, when he thereafter sought payment of the annuity and Give amount, the OP called for the original policy document and unilaterally reduced the monthly annuity amount to Rs.1560/- and the Give amount to Rs.1,56,000/- on the ground that there had been a clerical mistake in typing out the monthly annuity and the Give amount. As repeated requests did not lead to redressal of his grievance, the complainant filed the above-mentioned complaint before the District Forum seeking payments in accordance with the original policy document. The OP resisted the complaint by mainly contending that according to the terms of the Jeevan Dhara policy, the amounts of monthly annuity and Give payout for the premium being paid by the complainant were Rs.1,560/- and Rs.1,56,000/- respectively and the higher amounts typed on the policy document were on account of clerical mistake. 3. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, the District Forum accepted the version of the OP and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal with the following directions to the OP: 12. Therefore, we find the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India deficient in service for non-payment of the amount mentioned under the original Jeevan Dhara policy. The appellant is entitled to get initial pension as well as payable amount mentioned in the original bond issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India with interest @ 9% till realization. 13. Accordingly, we direct the Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay the pension amount of Rs.2000/- and total payable amount as per the agreement in the original bond. We also direct to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment to a senior citizen and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost. 4. It is against this order that the OP/LIC has filed this revision petition. 5. We have heard Mr. Amitabh Marwah, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one was, however, present on behalf of the respondent/complainant despite service of dasti notice. 6. The limited point involved in this petition is whether there was a clerical error in printing/typing the figures of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,39,163/- of the monthly annuity and the Give amounts. Before us, the petitioners have produced typed copies of the terms and conditions of the Jeevan Dhara policy and the calculation showing that for monthly premium of Rs.10,788.50, the correct amount of the monthly annuity was Rs.1,560/- and the Give amount was Rs.1,56,008/-. From the proposal form filled in and signed by the respondent/complainant in his own hand (a copy of which was also placed on record), it is seen that while the Give amount was written as Rs.1,56,000/-, the monthly annuity amount was Rs.2,000/-. It is the contention of the petitioners that the monthly annuity would be 1% of the Give amount, according to the terms and conditions of the policy. From this, it would be clear that there was some error in printing the final policy document and perhaps also in communicating the terms to the respondent/complainant at the time of his filling in the proposal form. 7. However, we cannot overlook certain facts mentioned in the State Commissions order. Thus: 5. The appeal had been filed on 13.08.2003 and the case was fixed for ex parte hearing on 04.02.2004. But on the day of hearing, the respondent appeared and filed a petition to recall the ex parte order, which was allowed. The respondents filed their rejoinder after the gap of five fixed dates and the appeal was put on 22.02.2008 for final orders. The final order was not passed due to lack of some necessary information in the records and an order was passed to explain certain defects vide order dated 22.02.2008 of the Commission to the respondents. On 01.10.2008, a supplementary rejoinder was submitted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8. It is admitted fact that the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India issued the Jeevan Dhara policy on 28-12-1989 bearing Policy No. 530238035 with yearly installment of Rs.10,788-50. The appellant paid the total premium for long nine years in terms to get the agreed amount on the original bond policy. The appellant did not get the payment of agreed amount, which should have started from 28-12-1998. The Life Insurance Corporation of India made the correction by reducing the pension amount payable from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1560/- and in the payable amount Rs.2,39,163/- to Rs.1,56,000/- in the original bond in year 2000. 9. Now, in this circumstance, we find 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 that itself amounts deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Action was taken to correct it only after the insured demanded the payment. 8. This account of the petitioners conduct clearly shows deficiency in service in dealing with the case as a whole. Therefore, while the operative part of the order of the State Commission (vide para. 3 above) cannot be sustained in law, we are inclined to hold that the respondent/complainant is certainly entitled to some compensation for the delays on the part of the petitioners which caused him harassment in receiving his due payment. 9. In conclusion, we partly allow the revision petition and set aside the operative part of the State Commissions order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the petitioners to pay to the respondent/complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of the harassment caused to him. Sd/- ...
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA) Sd/-
.
(SURESH CHANDRA) Mukesh