BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 6 of 2013
Dr. Manoj Kumar Paul,
Principal Women’s College
Shyama Prasad Road (Shillong Patty), Silchar-1………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
A Govt. of India undertaking having its Central Office
At ‘Yogakshema’ Jevan Bia Marg, P.B No. 19953
Mumbai – 400021 O.P No.1.
2. The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Central Office, ‘Yogakshema’ Jevan Bima Marg, P.B. 19953
Mumbai – 400021 O.P No.2.
3. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Zonal Office, Eastern Zone,
4, C.R. Avenue, Hindustan Buildings, Kolkata – 700072 O.P No.3.
4. The Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Divisional Office, Meherpur, Silchar – 788015 O.P No.4.
5. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Silchar Branch-1 (Opp. To Capital Travels), Silchar – 788001 O.P No.5.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Mr. Asit Kumar Mukherjee, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Suddhasatta Choudhury, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence 26-07-2013, 22-08-2013
Date of written argument 12-10-2017, 19-12-2017
Date of oral argument 03-04-2018, 14-05-2018, 17-05-2018
Date of judgment 26-06-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- The Complaint has been brought under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Life Insurance Corporation of India and its officers on the plea as below:-
The Complainant Dr. Manoj Kumar Paul purchased an Insurance Policy from O.P. Insurance Co. on 15/09/1989 under Salary savings scheme (SSS). Sum assured with accident benefit was Rs.60,000/-. The period was for 25 years. Date of maturity of Policy was 15/09/2014. It was a money back Plan of Rs.9,000/- for survival of every 5 years interval up to 60% of sum insured and balance 40% of the sum insured with survival benefit and accrued bonus to be paid on the maturity date on 15/09/2014. Monthly premium was fixed Rs.229.50. As per the scheme the premium was deductible directly from his monthly salary by his employer (D.D.O) i.e Principal, Radhamadhav College, Silchar.
- While the Policy was running smoothly, all on a sudden after Lapse of about 19 years, the O.P.No. 5, the Branch Manager L.I.C.I, Silchar Branch No.1 issued a letter to him on 15/02/2008 stating inter alia that as per Audit team’s opinion monthly premium of the Policy No.490031081 (SSS) has been wrongly calculated as Rs.229.80 instead of Rs.269.80. As such, asked to the Complainant to make payment of shortfall of total premium of Rs.8,760/- within 15/03/2008.
- The Complainant did not agree but the O.P. ultimately realize monthly premium at rate of Rs.269.80 from the D.D.O of the Complainant with effect from October 2008. However, on protest of the Complainant vide his letter date 28/09/2010, the D.D.O stopped to make payment increased rate of premium with effect from December 2010 vide letter of Principal, Radhamadhab College, Silchar, dated 06/05/2011. Due to stoppage, the O.P.No.5 informed the Principal, Radhamadhab, Silchar (D.D.O) that Insurance Premium received for the period from 12/2010 to 6/2011 has been kept in deposit account and Policy kept in lapsed condition and also informed that in case of additional payment as demanded by them is not paid, the benefit of Insurance cannot be continued, vide letter dated 16/09/2011 address to the Complainant and letter dated 11/04/2011 addressed to the Principal, Radhamadhab College, Silchar.
- However, on being aggrieved, the Complainant served a legal notice served to the Insurance Co. But the Manager (CRM) of the O.P. Insurance Co. arbitrarily decided the case as below in view of letter under reference No. SDO/CRM dated 06/10/2011 :-
- The arrear balance premium of Rs.9,160 waived as a very special case.
The Complaint is
- To pay all arrears premium from October 2008 and onwards at the correct rate of Rs.269.80 per month till maturity of the policy.
- The Complainant may revive the policy by complying with other requirement to our Silchar B.O-1 and enjoy the benefit of Insurance coverage.
- Therefore, as per view of the Complaint the Insurance Company has miserable failed to perform its duty towards the Complainant and as such the Complainant is suffering acute mental and physical harassment in general and considerable financial loss and distress in particular. Hence, he is seeking relief of recovering of excess premium paid with effect from October 2008 with interest and compensation as well as reimbursement of expenditure incurred on medical treatment due to mental agony etc.
- All the O.Ps submitted their joint W/S. In the W/S stated inter alia that during Audit checking in the year 2008 it was detected that due to miscalculation monthly insurance premium was taken Rs.229.80 instead of Rs.269.80. They stated that it was a human error and as such matter was informed to the complainant on 15/02/2008 with request to deposit Rs.8,760 being the shortfall of premium but the complainant was not co-operating. As such the employer of the Complainant deducted the insurance premium at the of Rs.269.80 from October 2008 to November 2010 from his salary but due to strong objection of the complainant the employer stopped to make payment of insurance premium with revised rate with effect from December 2010. However, on several correspondence, the difference of premium of 1st 229 month already waived by the O.P. and complainant was asked for the rest 71 month premium to pay at rate of Rs.269.80 per month. The upto date premium at the rate of Rs.269.80 is yet to be received by the O.P.No.5 and as such question of refund of excess premium does not arise.
- During hearing the Complainant submitted deposition supporting affidavit and exhibited relevant documents. The O.P. side also examined Sri Kaushiki Pada Bhattacharjee, the Administrative Officer as D.W-1 and exhibited some documents. After closing evidence both sides’ counsels submitted written arguments.
- Heard argument of both sides’ counsels, perused evidence on record including exhibited documents and written argument.
- The Crux point in this case is as whether the O.P. Insurance Co. after Lapse of 19 years from the date of selling Insurance Policy to the Complainant is legally entitled to revise the monthly Insurance premium.
- To answer the same, the O.P. by adducing evidence tried to established the fact that at the time of selling Insurance Policy, the monthly premium was mis-calculated, which is nothing but a human error and same is curable as and when detected due to audit inspection. The O.P. also tried to justify as why the said defect of collection less amount of premium was detected after 19 years of the age of the policy. But the plea of the Complainant is that when the Insurance premium was fixed at a certain rate and Insurance papers were signed and executed, the O.P is debarred from realization revised premium from the Complainant and bound to make payment of full benefit at the maturity of the insurance. In that aspect the Complainant exhibited not only insurance policy in original vide Ext.1 but also exhibited various corresponding letter and papers.
- All the exhibited documents of the complainant are admitted by the O.P. and also admitted the fact stated in the letter dated 06/10/2012 vide reference SDO/CRM vide Ext.16. But plea of the O.P. is that mis-calculation of premium is human error for which the complainant have to make good the shortfall in order to get full benefit of the Insurance policy at maturity.
- In support of the above plea the O.P. relied on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in life Insurance Corporation of India of Vs Anil Kumar Jain, Revision Ptn.No. 2802/2011.
- In that case Insurance Co. asked the insured to make payment of shortfall of Insurance premium after 20 years at a revised rate. The case went to National Commission. The National Commission held – “Insurer is not deleting or substituting any word (s) of the policy but is only rectifying the typographical error committed by its employee. Such error 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 Policy holder remit the shortfall without interest and continue payment of revised premium.
- In the instant case an almost identical fact is found. So, keeping in view the observation and decision of National Commission above, it is concluded that the Insurance Co. committed neither harassment nor cause any mental agony to the Complainant is calling for remittance of shortfall in premium after 19 years of selling Insurance policy to the Complainant.
- As such the Complainant is not entitled any relief as prayed for or any other relief as per law and equity.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on the 26th day of June, 2018.
