West Bengal

Bankura

CC/70/2016

Sri Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Bankura Branch, LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Self

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANKURA

Consumer  Complaint  No. 70/2016

Date of Filing : 05.09.2016

Before:

1. Samiran Dutta                Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee               Ld. Member. 

3.  Sudhakar Ghosh             Ld. Member.

 

For the Complainant: Self

For the O.P. None  

Complainant    

Sri Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee, S/o Late Gour Kishore Chatterjee, Village-Rasunkur, P.O.Jagdalla, District- Bankura-722 146

 

 Opposite Party 

1.Branch Manager, Bankura Branch, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Acharya J.C. Vidyanidhi Road, Natunchati, P.O. , P.S. & District . Bankura

2.Asansol Divisional Office, LIC Building, Asansol, W.B.

3.Sri Sunil Kumar Shit, Agent of LICI, Village & P.O.Jagdalla, Dist. Bankura

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

 

Order No.32                                                                             

Dt. 01-12-2022

The case is fixed for argument.

The Complainant is present personally by filing hazira.

No step is taken on behalf of any of the O.P.s.

                                                                                                                                                                             Contd……p/2

Page 2

It appears from the record that though all the three O.P.s appeared but only O.P. No.3 filed W.V. O.P. No.1 & 2 got several opportunity to contest the case but they deliberately remained absent without taking any steps and filing any W.V. The case was therefore fixed for argument. The Commission has no scope and opportunity to accommodate the absentee O.P.s by giving any further opportunity. Accordingly the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case after hearing argument from the Complainant.

            The complainant’s  case is that he took an LIC policy No. being 466100489 (Jeevan Saral) issued by O.P. No.1 with date of Commencement 14-06-2005 and date of Maturity  14-06-2016, Maturity Sum Assured Rs.1 Lac under Table and Term 165-11-11 on Half Yearly payment of Premium of Rs.2,426/- and paid all the premiums due under the said Policy. But to his utter surprise he received a letter dated: 16-12-2015 from O.P. No.1 just before six months of Maturity intimating him that due to an inadvertent typographical error the corrected Maturity sum assured is Rs.34,612/- in place of the sum assured value as mentioned in the Policy document. The complainant could not but accept Rs.45,861/- including Bonus to his Account. Thereafter the complainant verbally approached concerned LIC authority regarding the said payment which is far less than the Matured sum assured and the total premiums paid by him. Finding no satisfactory reply the complainant has filed the instant case praying for refund of total Matured value of Rs.1 Lac together with compensation of Rs.1 Lac.

            As stated above neither O.P. No.1 i.e. Branch Manager, LIC, Bankura Branch and O.P. No.2 i.e. Asansol Divisional Office, LIC has come forward to contest the case by filing any W.V. Only O.P. No.3 who is the Agent of LIC has filed W.V. and the Commission has nothing to do with the O.P. No.3

            In support of the claim the complainant has produced Policy document along with premium receipts , Payment Receipt of Rs.45,861/-  and the letter dated: 16-12-2015 at the time of hearing.

            On perusal of all the materials on record the Commission finds that the concerned LIC authority while settling the claim of the complainant has totally ignored the Insurance laws by denying legitimate benefit to the complainant. Under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 as amended in 2015 no Policy of Life Insurance shall be called in question on any ground whatsoever after the expiry of three years from the date of the Policy except on the ground of fraud. In this case no case of fraud has been made out by the O.P. and in fact it is not at all a case of fraud on the part of the Policy holder.           

                                                                                                                                                                                        Contd……p/3

Page 3

During the Policy period from 2005 to 2016 no communication was made by the LIC authority to the Complainant regarding such typographical error with regard to the Maturity amount. It is only when the Policy was about to mature on and from 14-06-2016 the concerned LIC authority threw a letter to the complainant on 16-12-2015 intimating  such typographical error and change of Maturity value. The disputed Table No. being 165-11-11 was also not provided to the complainant at the time of commencement of the Policy nor at any time during the tenure of the LIC policy and nor at the time of Maturity.

The Apex Court in a decision United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in (2004) 8SCC644 has held in Para-6 & 9 as follows:

Para 6: It is seen that the policy was issued on 14-12-2004 and was valid up to 14-12-2014. It may be true that the policy is issued under table 165 of the LIC, however, it has been admitted that the table was not supplied along with the policy document and therefore the insured may not be having any inkling that he may not get the amount mentioned in the policy. There was no communication made during the policy period by the insurance company mentioning the mistake in the policy document. It is only after the policy matured and question of payment of maturity amount cropped up, the insurance company has raised the issue of typing error in the policy document. Policy is a contract of utmost good faith and parties are bound by this contract. If any typing error is brought to the notice of the other party by any party before the claim becomes due, it can definitely be corrected. In the present case, the rectification of error has been sought once the question of final maturity amount has come up before the Insurance Company. Moreover the question is whether the complainant would have gone for the policy, had he known that on maturity he will get only Rs.38,970/- after paying regular premium of Rs.1,225/- quarterly for 10 years. During the currency of the policy, the insurance company did not point out any mistake in the policy, nor sent any corrected policy document. Now that the policy has matured and the claim became due on maturity, the insurance company is claiming the defect in the initial contract. The mistake or typographical error in the contract does not seem to be obvious and even if the mistake is justified on the basis of table 165 of the LIC, it is seen that this table was not part of the policy and was not supplied along with the policy document, therefore, the complainant may not be bound by this table, rather, the complainant and the insurance company both are bound by the written contract of insurance as mentioned in the policy document. The policy contract has to be interpreted in the terms as agreed in the contract by the contracting parties.

Para 9: ….It is settled law that terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties, they have to abide by the definition given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy should be interpreted with reference to the terms of policy and not with reference to the definition  given in other laws. It is a matter of contract and in terms of the contract the relation of the parties shall abide and it is presumed that when the parties have entered into a contract of insurance with their eyes wide open, they cannot rely on definition given in other enactment.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Contd……p/4

Page 4

Relying on the decision of the Apex Court NCDRC, New Delhi by its decision dated:02-03-2020 in LIC Vs. Parvati Bai in R.P. No. 2282/2018 has  given relief to the complainant in similar case the Maturity value as printed in the Policy document after affirming the concurrent findings of both District and State Commission in the State of Maharastra.

It is very astonishing that the Insurance Company like O.P. without adhering to the beneficial aspect of the Policy has adopted an unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service which is prejudicial and disadvantageous to the complainant within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act by denying due and innocuous relief to the complainant/policy holder in total ignorance of law and case laws.

It is beyond comprehension how a Policy holder would be attracted  to such a Policy where return benefit is far less than the investment. Had the Policy holder known the hidden agenda of the Insurance Company beforehand he would not have invested the amount in such non-profitable policy.

The Commission is fully satisfied with the case of the complainant and it is a deserving case where the complainant is entitled to get all the reliefs to the full extent as prayed for.

The case therefore succeeds Ex-parte. 

                                                                                                                                                                                      Contd……p/5

Page 5

Hence, it is ordered………

That the Complainant case No. 70/2016 is allowed Ex-Parte against O.P. No.1 & 2 and dismissed against O.P. No.3.

            O.P. No.1 & 2 are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs. 1 Lac minus Rs.45,861/- already paid together with compensation of Rs.1 Lac within one month from this date@ 9% interest per annum in default the decretal amount with interest may be realized in due process of law.

            O.P. No.1 & 2  are further directed to fix responsibility upon the erring officer at  whose instance such injustice has been meted out to the complainant and if possible the decretal amount may be realized from their emoluments.

            Both parties besupplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.           

The complainant is directed to serve the copy of this Judgement upon O.P. No.1 & 2 for their ready information.

           

Let a copy of this Judgement be sent to the LIC of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 for information and guidance.

 

                                   __________________                        ________________                                   ________________

                              HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                  HON’BLE    MEMBER                          HON’BLE    MEMBER