ORDER
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
The complainant had purchased a policy from OP1 through OP2 who is its registered agent. The some assured under the policy was Rs. 12,50,000/-. The terms of the policy was for a period of 30 years with an annual premium of Rs. 46,229/-. The compenscement date of the policy was agreed to be 24.11.2011. The complainant had undergone a medical checkup and had , thereafter, deposited the first premium of Rs 46,229/- which was duly accepted by OP1 and the policy documents were sent to the complainant. With the aforesaid terms. The complainant had also deposited the second year’s premiums of Rs. 46,229/- but before he could deposit the premium of the third year , he had received an e-mail from OP1 that he ha to deposit an extra premium of Rs. 1150/- along with the arrears of the last two years. The complainant took up the matter with the Ops but to no effect. OP1 has also refused to receive the premium of the fourth year on the pretext that it was less than what was actually due. The complainant has , therefore, approached this forum with the following reliefs:-
- The OP1 be directed to restore the policy taken by the complainant with all the benefits attached to it.
- Keep on accepting the premium on the basis of agreed terms i.e. Rs 46,229/- per annum.
- Allow cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- for causing mental agony, tension, anxiety etc. to the complainant a sum of Rs. 22,000/- towards legal expenses and
- Allow any other relief which this Hon’ble forum deemed fit and proper under facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite parties.
The Ops have contested the complaint. OP1 has filed a written statement wherein it has admitted that it had issued a policy in favour of the complainant wherein it had shown the premium amount as 46229/- and the sum assured as Rs. 12,50,000/- for a policy term of 30 years.
It has , however, claimed that there was a clerical mistake in the policy bond in column yearly premium wherein the yearly premium should have been mentioned as Rs. 5377/- instead of Rs. 46229/-. OP1 has claimed that it had immediately informed the complainant as well as OP2 about the aforesaid fact and sought the deposit of the difference in premium. OP1 has claimed that the complainant had opted for Jeevan Anand Plan 149 for which a premium of Rs 59,997/- was payable as pady recnker issued by it. It has claimed that the clerical error which had occurred in CREPT IN the policy bond was liable to be corrected and the complainant was liable to pay the yearly premium as per the plan term of the policy purchased by him. It has claimed that there is no deficiency in service on its part and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The learned counsel for OP1 has pressed into service a judgment of the National Commission titled as LIC V/s Anil Kumar Jain wherein in similar circumstances the National commission had allowed the LIC to rectify the typographical mistake and charge premium payable on the term table. Para 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
6. The short question which is to be decided in this revision petition is whether OP can rectify typographical mistake and charge more premium, which is payable on term table 79-30. Learned authorised representative of respondent submitted that petitioner cannot change terms and conditions of policy and placed reliance on 2010 (7) Supreme 83 – M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in which Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
“24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the Endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties”.
7. We agree to the principle enunciated in this judgment but this citation does not help to the respondent as petitioner is not deleting or substituting any word(s) of the policy but is rectifying only typographical mistake committed by employee of the petitioner.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Civil Appeal No. 6347 of 2000 – H.P. State Forest Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in which Hon’ble Apex Court held that on the basis of typographical mistake which has been rectified in the records of the Company before the occurrence, insured cannot get benefit of typographical mistake. In that case insured took insurance cover for a period of 8 months whereas by typographical mistake, one year was mentioned in the insurance policy and insured was not held entitled for compensation on account of loss caused after 8 months but within 12 months of insurance policy on the basis of typographical mistake in the insurance cover. He also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Original Petition No. 178 of 1995 – Satya Deo Malviya Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. in which typographical mistake was allowed to be rectified after 5 years and sum assured was reduced from Rs. 25,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-. In R.P. No.377 of 2011 – LIC & Anr. Vs. Raj Nandan Jha, this Commission vide its order dated 13.8.2012 allowed correction of typographical mistake after 8 years and reduced sum assured from Rs.2,39,163/- to Rs.1,56,000/- and pension amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,560/-.
9.In the light of aforesaid citations it becomes clear that typographical mistakes can be rectified as and when they are noticed and OP has not committed any error in asking complainant to make payment of premium to continue old term plan, particularly when complainant’s father, who was employee of petitioner must be aware that premium shown in term table 79-30 is not correct, and on refusal by the complainant, OP has not committed any error in revising term plan.
A perusal of the aforesaid paras in the judgment cited above gives no manner of doubt that OP1 was within its part to seek payment of the premium as per the planned term table. Since a hire premium was payable in the present case according to the plan term chosen by the complainant the complainant cannot insist on payment of a lesser premium on the basis of the policy bond received by him. The clerical error which had crept in the policy bond can also be corrected by OP1. We, therefore, see no merits in this complaint. The same is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
