Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)

Mafatlal T Padhiyar vs Lic Of India on 31 March, 2023

That Life Insurance Corporation has place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission reported (2013) CPJ 83 in the case of LIC Vs. Anil Jain as well as decision of Hon'ble National Commission of Revision Petition No. 3833/2011 in the case of Virupaxappa I. Vs. The Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India that in both the judgments the Hon'ble National Commission has place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.P State Forest Company Ltd. Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil appeal No. 6347/2000 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that on the basis of Typographical Mistake which has been rectified on the records of the company before the occurrence insured cannot get benefit of typographical mistake in that case insured took insurance cover for the period of 8 months where as by typographical mistake 1 year was mentioned in the Insurance Policy and insured was not entitled for compensation on account of loss caused after 8 month but within 12 month of insurance policy on the basis of typographical mistake of the insurance cover. So, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble National K.Navlakha A/17/688 Page 9 of 11 Commission typographical Mistake can be rectified on the records of the corporation before the occurrence herein this case also the Policy in question expire as on 07.03.2016 and prior to that as on 02.09.2015 LIC written a Letter to the complainant that LIC notice that in the policy document issue to the complainant there has been inadvertent typographical error in the Maturity sum assured which has been shown Rs. 2,50,000/- and as per the plan conditions the correct maturity sum assured is Rs. 30,590/- so, as per my considered view the opponent Insurance Corporation has rightly reduced the amount of maturity sum assured shown in the Policy from 2,50,000/- to 30,590/- and the Ld. Forum, has also considered the same facts in the impugned judgment and order and accordingly the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, directed the opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay Rs. 37,387/- to the complainant and additional amount of loyalty and therefore, according to my considered view the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Consumer Complaint No. 201/2016 is just and proper and the finding recorded by the Ld. Forum, are based on record and settled principal of law and therefore, the same also requires to be confirmed in this appeal and accordingly the appeal filed by the appellant/original complainant is meritless which requires to be dismissed in terms of the following final order.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Amarjit Kaur And Others on 13 May, 2015

12. They have also placed reliance on the judgment of National Commission in case of Virupaxappa I. Yaragatti vs. The Senior Branch 2014 (2)CLT, in which the National Commission had held that the suspicion of the typographical error in the policy point will have no bearing on the terms of the policy point. Typographical mistake can be rectified as and when they are noticed. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1