West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/57/2016

Shri Bimal Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, LICI - Opp.Party(s)

Ramala Murmu

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 

Complaint Case No.57/2016

 

                  Sri Bimal Kumar Das, S/o Lt Nirapada Das, Vill. & P.O. & P.S. – Jhargram,

                  District –Paschim Medinipur.……………………….………Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Branch Manager, L.I.C.I., Jhargram Branch at Raghunathpur, P.O. & P.S.- Jhargram, Dist- Paschim Medinipur,
2. Manager (CRM), Kharagpur Divisional Office, Malancha Road, P.O. –Nimpura, P.S. Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur,
3. Divisional Manager, L.I.C.I., Kharagpur Division, Malancha Road, P.O.-Nimpura, P.S. Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur,
4. General Manager, L.I.C.I., Hindustan Building, Kolkata.……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr. Ramala Murmu, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Diptendu Ghosh, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -14/09/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant while in service at Silda C.S. College, purchased one LICI policy being policy no.435695698 dated 25/04/2004 from Jhargram Branch Office and thereafter LICI Divisional Office at Howrah issued policy certificate of LICI’s Jeevan Saral ( with profits)

Contd………………….P/2

 

( 2 )

 and in that policy it is specifically mentioned in Maturity Sum Assured column as Rs.2,50,000/- and according to terms of  the policy,  the complainant had to pay Rs.12,010/- as yearly installment for 12 years.  The complainant has paid all the twelve installments and the policy was scheduled to be matured on 25/04/2016 and the last installment of premium has been paid on 25/04/2015.  After payment of twelve yearly installments, opposite party no.1 informed the complainant that he is entitled to get maturity benefit of the policy to the tune of Rs.68,810/- by sending a voucher although in the policy bond  it is clearly mentioned that sum assured is Rs.2,50,000/-.  It is stated that at the time of purchasing the said policy, the agent as well as the Branch Manager of opposite party no.1 very clearly and categorically told that the complainant that he will get Rs.2,50,000/- at the time of maturity.  After getting such voucher, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party no.1 but the opposite party no.1 paid no heed to that letter.  The complainant therefore sent a notice through his Ld. Advocate Ramala Murmu for payment of Rs.2,50,000/- but the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant stating that maturity amount of the said policy is Rs.49,150/-  only.  The Manager (CRM) of Kharagpur Divisional Office i.e. opposite party no.2 also informed the complainant that  Rs.2,50,000/- has been wrongly typed in the policy certificate as “Death Sum Assured” due to typographical error which is payable to the nominee after demise of the policy holder but as per terms and condition of the Jeevan Saral Policy, the correct maturity sum assured will be Rs.49,150/- payable to the policy holder upon his/her servival on the date of maturity.  The said reply of opposite party no.2 cannot be accepted as the complainant has already paid Rs.1,44,120/-.  It is stated that the complainant as per terms and condition of the policy is entitled to get Rs.2,50,000/- from the LICI and they cannot escape the payment of said amount to the complainant.  Hence the compliant,  praying for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as assured policy amount and Rs.30,000/- as compensation.

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the complainant purchased the said policy from the Howrah Office of LICI and not from these opposite parties and at the time of issuing the policy bond, it has been mentioned due to typographical error that sum assured is Rs.2,50,000/- but actually Rs.2,50,000/- is the death benefit sum assured.  When after maturity of the said policy, LICI issued discharge voucher to the complainant, the anomaly regarding

Contd………………….P/3

 

( 3 )

mentioning of Rs.2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured is detected as typographical error and on verification and proper calculation as per terms and condition of the policy the survival benefit comes to Rs.68,810/- and not Rs.2,50,000/-.  The said amount of Rs.68,810/- is payable in terms of policy condition of Jeevan Saral of the said policy.  The complainant was well aware about the said fact but taking advantage of typographical  printed amount in the policy bond, he is trying to get more money from the LICI. Jeevan Saral is a plan where death sum assured is 250 times of monthly premium irrespective of the age of the life assured and as such death sum assured is Rs.2,50,000/- (250 x 1000).  In case of Jeevan Saral (165) plan for a policy of 12 years terms and age at entry 58 years, the maturity sum assured per Rs.100 monthly premium comes to Rs.4,915/-.  In the instant case, the monthly premium is Rs.1000/- and hence the maturity sum assured is Rs.4,915/- and loyalty benefit is Rs.19,960/- i.e. total Rs.68,810/- is payable as maturity benefit of the policy and the opposite party no.1 has correctly mentioned the said maturity amount in the discharge voucher.  The opposite parties informed about the maturity amount which the complainant is entitled to get and about typographical error and the said policy bond to the complainant vide their letter dated 21/09/2015 by registered post and the complainant also received the said letter.  It is stated that L.I.C.I. being an organization of Government of India is not involved in any conspiracy and it always works with 100% transparency whenever proposers approaches for accepting new policy.  Hence question of cheating does not arise at all.  The complainant purchased the policy after being fully aware of the benefits under the policy.  In the policy bond it has been mentioned in bold letter that if any mistake is found then a policy holder may at immediately inform the said for correction.  But the complainant did not return the same even after noting the typographical mistake intentionally.  It is stated by the opposite parties that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they are ready to pay Rs.68,810/- as maturity benefit of the said policy.  Opposite parties therefore claim dismissal of the case with cost.

 

                                                                 Point for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?  

                                                                                 Contd………………….P/4

 

                                                                  ( 4 )                    

Decision with reasons

  For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

 Admittedly the complainant purchased the L.I.C.I. policy being no. no.435695698 dated 25/04/2004 from Jhargram Branch Office of the opposite party and thereafter LICI Divisional Office at Howrah according issued the policy.  The complainant paid Rs.12010/- as early yearly installment for 12 years.  Admittedly after payment of all installments of premiums, the opposite party no.1 informed the complainant that he is entitled to get maturity benefit to the tune of Rs.68,810/- by sending a discharge voucher.  According to the complainant,  in the policy bond it is clearly mentioned that the same assured is Rs.2,50,000/- but instead of paying of the said amount, the opposite party no.1 has sent a maturity voucher of Rs.68,810/- .  As against this, it is the case of the opposite parties that the policy in question is a “Jeeven Saral” (T-165) plan for a policy period of 12 years and age at entry 55 years the maturity sum assured Rs.100/- per month amount maturity comes to Rs.4915/-.  In the instant case the monthly premium is Rs.1000/-. Hence the maturity sum assured comes to Rs.49,150/- + loyalty addition is Rs.19,900/- i.e. total Rs.68,810/- and the same is payable as maturity benefit to the complainant. In the instant case monthly premium is Rs.1000/- and hence the maturity sum assured is Rs.49,150/- (10 x Rs.4,915) and loyalty benefit  is Rs.19,960/- i.e. total Rs.68,810/- is payable to the complainant as maturity benefit and the opposite party no.1 has correctly mentioned the said maturity amount in the discharge voucher.  It is also the case of the opposite parties that Jeevan Saral policy is a plan where the death sum assured is 250 times of monthly premium irrespective of the age at entry of the life assured and as such death sum assured is Rs.2,50,000/- as the monthly premium is Rs.1000/-.  After maturity of the said policy when discharge voucher was being issued then it was noticed that due to typographical error Rs.2,50,000/- has been mentioned as maturity sum assured in place of death benefit sum assured.  According to the complainant at the time of purchasing the said policy, the agent as well as the Branch Manager very clearly and categorically told the complainant that he will get Rs.2,50,000/- at the time of maturity of the policy.  There is no evidence on behalf of the complainant regarding such assurance by the agent and opposite party no.1.  In support of their case opposite party/L.I.C.I. has filed the printed copy of L.I.C.I.’s Jeevan Saral plan no.165.  From the said document we find that in column A(4) it has been mentioned that sum assured (death) will be 250 times of the monthly basic premium excluding term rider DAB premium and any extra premium.  Here in the present case, the monthly premium of the policy in

Contd………………….P/5

 

                                                                                              ( 5 )

question is admittedly Rs.1000/- and so by multiplying 250, the sum assured (Death) comes to Rs.2,50,000/-.  On perusal of the policy certificate we find that the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been typed as maturity sum assured in place of death benefit sum assured.  According to the opposite party the said mistake has been done due to the typographical mistake and for such mistake the complainant is not entitled to said sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured.

In case of Satyadev Malviya Vs. L.I.C.I. it has been held by the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. that typographical mistake may be rectified by the insurance company even after lapse of years and the complainant cannot get any benefit arising out of such mistake or error.

So in view of the said decision of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C., the complainant in this case cannot get any benefit for such typographical mistake.  Regarding entitlement of maturity value of the policy in question we find from the copy of LICI’s  Jeevan Saral plan no.165 that  in Chart showing maturity sum assured as per monthly premium of Rs.100/- at page 19, as submitted by the LICI that at the entry age 58 of this policy maturity sum assured per Rs.100/- as monthly premium is Rs.4,915/-.  Here in this case the complainant under the said plan at the entry age of 58 paid monthly premium @ of  Rs.1000/- and therefore the maturity sum assured comes to Rs.49,150/- and we find from letter dated 7/4/2016 addressed to the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant by the opposite party LICI that per terms and condition of Jeevan Saral policy, the correct maturity sum assured under above policy will be Rs.49,150/- payable to the policy holder upon his or her survival on the date of maturity.  In their written objection,  the OP-LICI has stated that in addition to that maturity sum assured of Rs.49,150/-,  complainant  is also entitled to a sum of Rs.19,960/- as loyalty amount i.e. total Rs.68,810/- as maturity benefit and the opposite no.1  has also mentioned the said amount correctly in the discharge voucher.  From the petition of complaint we find that the complainant has also admitted that opposite party no.1 has sent a discharge voucher of Rs.68,810/- .

Under the above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above,  we are of the view that due such typographical mistake,  the complainant is not entitled to get Rs.2,50,000/- as maturity sum assured but he is entitled to get Rs. 68,810/- towards maturity sum assured plus loyalty.

All the points are accordingly disposed off. 

In the result, the complainant case stands allowed in part.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                    Contd………………….P/6

 

( 6 )         

 

Ordered,

                                                             that the complaint case no.57/2016  is allowed in part on contest but in the circumstances without cost.  Ops/ LICI are directed to pay the maturity sum assured of Rs.49,150/- with loyalty benefit of  Rs.19,960/- i.e. total Rs.68,810/- to the complainant on receipt of the discharge voucher from the complainant within 7 (seven) days from the date of production of the discharge voucher.

 Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

            Dictated and Corrected by me

                      Sd/-B. Pramanik.                       Sd/- D. Sengupta.                         Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                           President                                      Member                                      President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur