State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Mr. Harendra Singh Bisht on 26 August, 2024
1 [A/2020/504]
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
APPEAL NO. A/2020/504
(Arisen out of Judgment and Order dated 10/01/2020 in
Complaint No. 154 of 2019 passed by the Learned District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Additional Thane, At
CBD Belapur)
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Through its Manager,
Branch Code 92A LIC of India,
Vashi Branch Office, Persipolis Building,
2nd floor, Sector 17-A, Vashi 400 705 ... Appellant
Versus
MR. HARENDRA SINGH BISHT
Flat No. C-202, Chawal Plaza Owner
Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd., Plot No. 14-15,
Sector-11. C.B.D. Belapur,
Navi Mumbai-400614 ... Respondent
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma : Presiding Member
Hon'ble Ms. Poonam Maharshi : Member
For the The learned Advocate Shri. Asim
Appellant : Vidyarthi is present for appellant.
For the The learned Advocate Shri.
Respondent : Pravin Mhatre for the respondent
JUDGMENT
(26/08/2024)
Per: Hon'ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma - Presiding Member -
1. This appeal is filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") challenging the judgment and order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Additional 2 [A/2020/504] Thane, At CBD Belapur (hereinafter referred to as the "District Commission") in Complaint No. 154 of 2019.
2. The Appellant filed the present appeal with a delay of approximately 242 days. A Miscellaneous Application No. MA/20/268 was filed for condonation of delay. The Respondent raised no objection to the condonation of the delay. Considering the reasons provided, the lack of objection from the Respondent, and the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, application for condonation of delay was allowed on 23rd February 2024 and it was adjourned for hearing on admission of Appeal.
3. Facts of the Complaint is that the Respondent, a 72-year-old retired individual, had taken an insurance policy from the Appellant in 2004. The policy was named "Jeevan Saral" with policy number 922902358, and it was scheduled to mature on 28.03.2017. The Respondent paid all the required premiums for the policy, which was for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-. However, on the maturity date, the Respondent received only Rs. 70,716/- after deductions for a loan taken against the policy and interest thereon. The Respondent claimed that he was entitled to receive Rs.3,79,920/- after these deductions, but the Appellant contended that there had been a typographical error in the policy document, and the actual maturity sum assured was Rs.1,20,080/-.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint filed by Mr. Harendra Singh Bisht (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") and directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3,79,920/- under policy No. 922902358 along with interest at 3 [A/2020/504] the rate of 9% from 28.03.2017, failing which interest at the rate of 12% was to be paid. The District Commission also awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony and costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the Respondent.
5. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, raised several grounds in their appeal, including:
a) The District Commission's judgment was contrary to the law and unsupported by the evidence on record.
b) The District Commission erred in ordering the Appellant to pay Rs.3,79,920/- under the policy and failed to consider the Appellant's letter dated 10.05.2016, which informed the Respondent about the typographical error.
c) The Appellant also highlighted that the Insurance Ombudsman had previously dismissed the Respondent's complaint on similar grounds.
6. The Appellant prayed for the quashing of the District Commission's judgment and order and requested that the matter be remanded back for fresh consideration. The Appellant argued that the Respondent could not take advantage of a typographical error, and the policy was only payable for Rs.1,20,080/- on maturity as per the actual policy terms.
7. The appeal was heard, and the documents on record were reviewed. The Respondent argued that he had been promised by the policy document, which clearly stated that the sum assured on maturity was Rs.5,00,000/-. The Appellant's contention that the error was typographical was opposed, especially considering 4 [A/2020/504] that the Respondent had been paying premiums based on this understanding for 13 years.
8. Upon considering the judgment of District Commission and other relevant documents and the arguments presented, it is clear that in this case, it is observed that the proceedings before the District Commission were conducted ex parte against the Appellant. The Appellant failed to appear despite being duly served with notice. The reasons provided by the Appellant for non-appearance, attributing it to work pressure at the branch office, are unconvincing and do not justify the non-participation in the proceedings before the District Commission. The District Commission, therefore, rightly proceeded ex parte, and the order passed was based on the available evidence and documents, which the Appellant chose not to challenge at the appropriate time.
9. The Appellant did not take timely action to correct the purported error in the policy document. The Respondent had consistently paid premiums with the expectation of receiving Rs.5,00,000/- on maturity, as was repeatedly mentioned in the policy statements and receipts over the years. The Appellant's argument concerning the typographical error, belatedly raised only in 2016 after the policy had been in effect for over a decade, is entirely untenable and must be unequivocally rejected.
10. Furthermore, the Appellant's failure to address this issue until just before the policy's maturity, despite multiple renewals and audits, raises serious concerns about the transparency and fairness of the service of Appellant. The claim of the Respondent 5 [A/2020/504] stands validated, as the policy document forms the basis of the contract between the parties.
11. During the oral argument, the Appellant audaciously attempted to claim that the Maturity Sum Assured was left blank and that the Rs. 5,00,000/- figure represented the Death Benefit Sum Assured. We tried to explain as it is clearly evident that each line, including the policyholder's name and address, is simply typed one line below but the same argument were repeated several times despite our clear enlightenment given to Appellant. This was a clear attempt to mislead the Commission to accept such a baseless argument without scrutiny. After a thorough examination of the entire record and the submissions made, it is evident that the present appeal is not only devoid of any merit but also a deliberate attempt by the Appellant to escape liability arising from its own deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Even if we accept the defence of the Appellant, it's failure to correct an alleged typographical error for over 13 years, and its subsequent attempt to deny the rightful claim of the Respondent who is now 77 years old, under the pretext of this error, constitutes a clear case of deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Such actions cannot be condoned by this Commission.
12. The maxim "Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria" appropriately applies here, as the Appellant is attempting to get benefit from its own mistakes. The law does not permit one to take advantage of their own wrongs, and this principle clearly bars the Appellant from evading its obligations under the policy.
6 [A/2020/504]
13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as frivolous and without any merit. The Appellant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the Respondent. The order of the District Commission is confirmed in its entirety. Hence we proceed to pass following order.
Order
1. The appeal filed by the Appellant is hereby dismissed as frivolous and without any merit.
2. The order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Additional Thane, at CBD Belapur in Complaint No. 154/2019, dated 10.01.2020, is confirmed in its entirety.
3. The Appellant is directed to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Respondent against present frivolous appeal within 30 days, failing which it shall attract interest @ 12 % per annum till it's realization.
4. In lieu of dismissal of Appeal pending Interim Application is also disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost Pronounced on 26th August, 2024 [Mukesh V. Sharma] Presiding Member [Poonam Maharshi] Member