Haryana

Ambala

CC/23/2015

Mahavir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Corp. - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

14 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

Complainant case no. : 23 of 2015

Date of Institution    : 27.01.2015

Date of decision       : 14.10.2016

Subhedar Major Mahavir Singh Sangwan son of Sh. Nihar Singh Sangwan, resident of House no. 108, Sector-‘c’, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

1. The Manager, LIC Branch office, Jeevan Jyoti Bhuilding, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Ambala Cantt-133001.

2. Divisional Manager, Divisional officer, P.O. Box no. 106, “Jeevan Parkash” 489, Model Town, Karnal. -132001.

 ….…. Respondent.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

Before:           SH. DN ARORA, PRESIDENT

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                        

Present:          Complainant in person.

                        Sh. R.K. Jindal, counsel for the Ops.

ORDER:

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint that the complainant had taken a L.I.C. policy bearing no. 140446436 in his own name on 28.07.1994 for 20 years money back policy amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and that policy matured on 28.07.2016. The amount received by the complainant of the said money back policy is as Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque no. 250782 dated 28.07.1999, Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque no. 0056057 dt. 28.07.2004, Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque no. 533436 dt. 28.07.2009 and Rs. 71500/- (Rs. 20000/- (40%) plus Rs. 51500/- (bonuses). Further submitted that LIC has not paid full  maturity benefits as per schedule -5 of the LIC policy i.e. Rs. 50,000/- on account of sum assured and LIC stated that in schedule -5 of the policy is typing error and refused to give the assured sums i.e. Rs. 50,000/-. Further submitted that the opposite parties are legally entitled for the assured sum as per insurance policy issued by the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that the payment under the policy in question was to be paid by the opposite party as sum assured together with the accrued bonuses, if the life assured died before the date of maturity stipulated on the policy bond. Further submitted that in the present case the opposite parties had already paid the amount under the policy in question to the complainant as admitted by the complainant but due to some typographical mistake, in the policy bond at Sr. No. 5 of schedule of payment has been wrongly typed 40% with sum assured together with the accrued bonuses instead of 40% of the sum assured together with accrued bonuese with accrued bonus and the complainant wants to take the benefit of the above said typographical mistake in the policy bond and the complainant is not entitled to the sum assured amount of Rs. 50,000/- as alleged.

3.                     To prove his version counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX along with documents as annexure C1 to C5 and close their evidence. On the other hand counsel for the respondent tendered affidavit of respondent as Annexure RX along with documents as annexure R1 and close the evidence on behalf of respondent.

4                      We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for the Ops and carefully gone through the case file. It is admitted fact on record that complainant has received the following amounts as per schedule below:-

i           Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque no. 250782 dated 28.07.1999 as 20% of sum assured in first 5 years.

ii          Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque no. 0056057 dt. 28.07.2004 as 20% of sum assured in 10 years.

iii        Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque no. 533436 dt. 28.07.2009 as 20% of sum assured in 15 years.

iv         Rs. 71500/- (Rs. 20000/- (40%) of sum assured plus Rs. 51500/- as (bonuses).

                        But the case of the complainant is that the Op has not given him benefit under clause 5 of the policy which says “On life assured surviving the stipulated-40 per cent with the sum assured together with accrued bonuses”. Thus as per complainant, he is entitled to 40% with sum assured together with accrued bonuses which comes to                    Rs.20000/- as 40%  of sum assured plus Rs. 51500/- (bonuses) as well as Rs. 50,000/- the sum assured by complainant i.e. a total sum of Rs.1,21,500/- whereas he has received only Rs.71,500/-.

                        On the other hand, the version of Op is that  they have already paid the full payment alongwith all benefits to the complainant as  per their schedule  and admitted by complainant in para No.3 (i to iv) of the complaint. But the Op vehemently contested that the complainant is not entitled to Rs.50,000/- of the sum assured amount due to typographical mistake of word ‘with’ instead of ‘of’ in clause/point 5 in their policy bond (Annexure C-5) which is reproduced as under:-

1.         xxxxxxxxxx no applicable in this case only applies in case of death.

2.         On life assured surviving 5 years from the-20% of the sum assured. Date of commencement.

3.         On life assured surviving 10 years from the-20% of the sum assured. Date of commencement.

4.         On life assured surviving 15 years from the-20% of the sum assured. Date of commencement.

5.         On life assured surviving the stipulated -40% with the sum assured together with the accrues bonuses. Date of maturity.

                        Perusal  of the above said terms & conditions, it is clear that in clause no.2 to 4 the word mentioned as 20% of the sum assured but column no.5 word has been written 40% with sum assured it seems that it is clerical/typographical  mistake and meaning thereby rest of the assured amount is 40% excluding 60% mentioned  in the column no. 2 to 4.  Counsel for the Ops has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Dehli in Revision Petition No. 2802/2011 titled as Life Insurance Corp. of India Vs. Anil Kumar Jain reported in Legal Digest, April 2013 page no. 1 wherein mentioned that “ Policy under plan & term 79-30 regular payment of premium in accordance with increasing sum assured-requisition after about 20 years to remit shortfall in premium-refusal by respondent to accept revised terms-plan changed and refund cheque sent to policyholder, which was returned unacknowledged-prayer to retain original plan-deficiency of service alleged-whether a typographical error in policy condition can be rectified and remedial steps taken by the insurer”.  Held: “All aspects relating to the policy stand undisputed except thefact that the demand for short premium in Plan-term 79-30 by notice dated 15.12.2007, was made after 20 years. In this case, the insurer is not deleting or substituting any word(s) of the policy but is only rectifying the typographical error committed by its employee. Such errors can be corrected as and when they are noticed and no error has been committed by the insurer in calling for remittance of shortfall in premium. Such error being pointed out by way of audit objection after 20 years, it is proper to make the policyholder remit the shortfall without interest, and continue payment of revised premium”.

                        Counsel for the opposite party has also drawn our attention towards document Money Back Plans (Annexure R-1) D-Survival Benefits which gives table for clarifying the term of policy and reimbursement thereof:-

A=% of the sum assured payable as survival benefit amount at the end of ‘B’ years from date of commencement.

Table/terms		NO OF SB INSTALLMENT PAY PAYABLE
		I	II	III	IV	V
73-12	A	20%	20%	60%
X	X	X	X	X	X
X	X	X	X	X	X
75-20	A	20%	20%	20%	40%
	B	5	10	15	20

 

                        Meaning thereby that in first five years, the complainant was entitled for 20% of the sum assured and likewise in 2^nd five years, in 3^rd five years and 40% of the sum assured in the last 20 years. During the course of arguments, it has been admitted by counsel for the Op that word ‘with’  has been inserted in policy bond due to typographical mistake whereas it should be ‘of’ and complainant can not be given benefit of any doubt or mistake.

5.                     In view of above discussion, we have come to conclusion that there is typographical mistake of word ‘with’ in place of ‘of’ in the policy  and benefit of such types of mistake cannot be given to the complainant and it can be rectified as and when it is noticed as observed by Hon’ble National Commission in case Life Insurance Corp. of India Vs. Anil Kumar Jain (Supra). Apart from it, it is crystal clear from document Annexure R-1, that due to typographical mistake word ‘with’ has been inserted in place of ‘of’  whereas in all other columns of that document –D Survival Benefit  ‘A’ has been referred to ‘% of the sum assured’  Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to any relief, hence, finding no force in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance  be consigned to record room after due compliance.

                                                                               Sd/-

Announced On:14.10.2016                              (D.N. ARORA)                                                                                                                                                                                                       President

 

                                      Sd/-

                             (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                       Member