Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant invested Rs.52,511/- with the Opposite party on 28.03.2003 in a scheme by name Balavidya floated by the Opposite party. The scheme envisaged repayment at Rs.250/- from 28.04.2005 to 28.03.2012 and at Rs.500/- from 28.04.2012 to 28.03.2020. The repayment was increased to Rs.1,000/- per month from 28.04.2020 to 28.04.2026. It is the case of the Complainant that after he received the bond from the Opposite party, he was shocked to notice that he would not get any repayment immediately, but would start getting from 28.04.2008. An enquiry with the Opposite party he was told that there was a printing error in the policy bond and he has asked to get the same rectified at the office by bringing the bond. The Complainant has stated that he could not get his mother treated owning to paucity of funds and she died on 13.01.2006 had the Opposite party paid Rs.250/- per month from 28.04.2005 as promised it could have given him relief to get his mother treated. The Complainant also says that the education and expenses of his daughter is becoming burden some and his business suffered loss. The scheme under which he has invested is not giving him any returns, hence he wants the Forum to direct the Opposite party to refund the amount invested by him with costs.<br /> 2. The Opposite party in his version has admitted that the Complainant invested Rs.52,511/- in the Balavidya scheme. According to him, the scheme contemplates payment of Rs.25,000/- being the sum assured on 28.03.2026 with guaranteed addition and loyalty addition. This scheme also provides for monthly repayment at 1% of the sum assured starting from 28.04.2008 to 28.03.2012. Such monthly repayment would increase to 2% and 4% for the period from 28.04.2012 to 28.03.2020 and 28.04.2020 to 28.03.2026 respectively. The Opposite party has denied that the 1st survival benefit fell due payment on 28.04.2005. He has contended that the complainant was informed about the typographical error in the date. According to the Opposite party, the 1st survival benefit becomes payable after the child attains the age of 5 years or 2 years after the date of commencement whichever is later. It is the opponents case the date that is 28.04.2008, which was erroneously written as 28.03.2005. The Opposite party has averred, the complainant was informed about the terms and conditions of the policy, hence the complaint filed by him is with an intention to make unlawful gain and to seek sympathy of this Forum. <br /> 3. From the above contentions, the following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party has rendered deficient service by not paying the survival benefit as mentioned in the policy bond?<br /> 2. Whether the Opposite party proves that the date mentioned in the policy is a typographical error and the survival benefit will accrue as per the terms of policy?<br /> 3. What relief or order?<br /> 4. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 and 2 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.3 : As per the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. Points no. 1 & 2:- It is not in dispute that the complainant has obtained a Balavidya policy from the Opposite party by paying Rs.52,511/-. The Opposite party has filed copy of the brochure of the Balavidya plan from where it is seen that the scheme provides for survival benefits as well as death benefit. The survival benefit progressively increases from 1% to 4%. However, it is seen from the copy of the policy that the survival benefit at 1% has been shown to commence from 28.04.2005, which according to the Opposite party is a typographical error. It is also seen from a letter dated 20.05.2005 written by the Opposite party wherein it is mentioned that the survival benefits are payable from 28.03.2005. Though, the policy commenced from 28.03.2003, the typographical error has come to light only in May 2005 when the complainant who was anticipating the 1st survival benefit amount did not get it, then ensure the series correspondences between the parties. It is only in their letter dated 29.06.2005 that the Opposite party acknowledged the typographical error and asked the complainant to bring the policy bond to their office for rectification. Though, there is no deficiency in service arising out of non-payment of the survival benefit. There is no doubt in negligence for completing the policy bond, which made the Complainant to believe that he would get the 1st survival benefit amount in 2005. We have also noticed another mistake on the policy bond where the date of maturity has been shown as 26.03.2003 whereas date of commencement of the policy itself is 28.03.2003. Such glaring mistakes on the policy bond will speaks about negligence with which policy bond is issued without even cursory scrutiny. In fact, the policy bond provides for scrutiny before the Branch Manager signs it. If such glaring mistakes have escaped the notice of the person who scrutinized it and also Branch Manager, it would speaks volume about authority in the Opposite party’s Office. This scheme, no doubt provides for payment of 1st survival benefit when the child attains age of 5 years after 2 years from the commencement of the policy whichever later. At the time of the commencement of the policy, the child had not even one year old (date of birth 01.04.2002 and commencement of policy on 28.03.2003), such being the case the 1st survival benefit would accrue only for the year 2008 after the child completes 5 years. It is a concerned that the proposal form carries a question as to whether the person proposing to take the policy had understood the terms and conditions of the policy proposed to be taken by him. In fact, the Complainant has answered it as yes. Yet, the Complainant has entered in to a correspondence with the Opposite party for the non-payment of the survival benefit. The question is whether the Opposite party did not explain the scheme properly or whether the Complainant was under a mistake of notion. It is obvious that the Complainant did not understand the scheme properly, but went find the date mentioned on the policy bond. The Opposite party on his part not satisfied with the glaring mistakes committed on the policy bond, wrote another letter to the Complainant on 20.05.2005 reiterating that the 1st survival benefit would accrue on 28.03.2005. This is negligence per se. Thus, the Opposite party has committed mistake upon mistake thereby misleading the Complainant about the survival benefit. Though, the Complainant is not entitled for any survival benefit under the policy at present the Opposite party is liable to compensate the Complainant for misleading him, which lead to this litigation. It is a wonder that the mistake has gone any unnoticed from 2003 till 2005. Hence, we answer point no.1 & 2 in the partly affirmative and we proceed to pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint on merits is dismissed.<br /> 2. The Opposite party shall pay the complainant cost of Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at 10% p.a. thereafter till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The Opposite party is at liberty to recover the amount of damages awarded from the persons responsible for such lapses. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />