The case of the complainant, in a nutshell, is that the complainant is a retired S.S.B personnel and on 31/03/2004 the O.P.No.1 through his agent Mr. Samir Gope (O.P No.3) made a proposal to the complainant for purchasing a policy under the head  ‘LIC’s JEEVAN SARAL (with profit)’ and the installment premium as proposed was fixed at Rs. 1225/- quarterly and accordingly the complainant entered into an agreement with the LICI, Falakata Branch vide Policy No. 453482980 was issued in his name.

                The further case of the complainant is that the date of commencement of the said policy was 28/03/2004, as per the policy certificate date of the last premium was to be paid on 28/12/2015 and the date of maturity was fixed on 28/03/2016. As per the policy it was offered in writing that  “In the event of the Life Assured surviving the date of maturity a sum equal to maturity sum assured in force …………, shall be payable”. The maturity sum assured was kept blank in the said certificate. It was assured by the O.P NO. 1 that the same shall be equivalent to the amount mentioned as death benefit sum assured and in this case it was Rs. 1, 00,000/- (One Lakh). The complainant since 28/03/2004 was regularly paid premium installment till the date of maturity and deposited a total sum of Rs. 58,800/- as premium against the said policy against 48 Nos. of installments.

                Thereafter complainant received a letter from the O.P No. 1 dated 26/12/2015 where from the complainant found that the maturity sum assured of his policy will only be Rs. 19,660/- and it has also been mentioned by the O.P No. 1 in the said letter that “We have noticed that in sum of the policy documents issued to you there has been an inadvertent typographical error in the maturity sum assured.  As per the plan conditions, the correct maturity sum assured 19,600/-“. Thereafter the LICI, Falakata Branch just two days after issuance of the earlier letter, issued another letter dated 28/12/2015 addressing to the complainant rectifying the earlier amount of Rs. 19,600/- to Rs. 26,541/- and from the said letter it is evident that Rs. 6,881/- has been given in bonus basing upon the maturity sum assured of Rs. 19,660/-. Thereafter the complainant on 21/01/2016 gave reply to both the letters issued by LICI, Falakata Branch expressing his grievances regarding the de-creation of the maturity amount from Rs. 1, 00,000/- to Rs. 19,660/-. The O.P No. 1 in his turn issued reply to the said letter on the self same contest giving same excuse. The complainant sent legal notice to the O.Ps on 24/04/2016 and as per postal information the O.P No. 1 received the notice on 29/04/2016 and O.P No.2 also received the notice on the same date. But the O.Ps did not pay any heed.

                The further case of the complainant is that at the time of purchasing the policy if the O.P No. 1 and the Agent, O.P No. 3 cleared to the complainant that he has to pay Rs. 58,800/- to get back and amount to Rs. 19,600/- + Bonus then the complainant would have thought twice before entering the agreement. The complainant paid all the installments paid as per terms of the policy but O.Ps side did not pay the maturity sum.  

                Hence, this case filed by the complainant with a prayer for passing and award of Rs. 1, 00,000/- (One Lakh) as the maturity sum as assured by the O.Ps and also an award of Rs. 25,000/- for the cost of harassment from the O.Ps and an award of Rs. 15,000/- as cost of the litigation and also passing an award of Rs. 25,000/- for his mental agony and shock from the O.Ps.

                 All the 3 O.Ps have appeared before this Forum and filed written version separately. All the O.Ps have also denied all the materials allegation as leveled by the complainant against them and they have prayed for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.

                O.P Nos. 1 and 2 took plea / defence in their joint written version that the LICI’S Jevan Saral Plan (Table-165) is a unique plan having good features of the conventional plan and flexibility of Unit Link Plan. This is HIGH RISK COVERING PLAN. Risk covering is 250 times of basic monthly installment of premium. Higher the age of life assured, higher the risk and higher the premium. At the time of taking the policy, the complainant was 58 years of age. Hence, major portion of the premium is utilized for risk coverage. Hence, as per plan condition the maturity sum assured under the Policy No. 453482980 is Rs. 19,660.00. They admitted that there is typographical error in the policy bond but the complainant has no right to ignore the terms and conditions of the policy by availing the opportunity of such error. The terms and conditions of the policy are approved by I.R.D.A and that can not be washed out by the complainant by taking advantage of error. In support of their argument both the O.Ps Nos. 1 and 2 based on decision in judgment in National Commission Case, Revision Petition No. 3833 of 2011 Virupaxppa- I Vs LIC of India, N.C.D.R.C, New Delhi (Order dated 19^th March, 2014).

                O.P No. 3 took defence (Plea) that he is a mere agent of the LICI. He introduced the petitioner with the LICI, Falakata Branch as a part of his job. He made proposal to the petitioner regarding “Jevan Saral Plan” and as per his proposal the complainant being satisfied purchased the aforesaid policy. O.P No. 3 never made any assurance to the complainant regarding the Jevan Saral Plan (Table-165) apart from the Policy conditions.

                In order to prove the case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and submitted written argument. On the other hand all the O.Ps have also filed evidence on affidavit and submitted written argument in respect of their cases.

                Both the parties have also filed documents as per ‘firisty’ in support of their case.

                We have perused the materials on record very carefully and also heard the argument as advanced by the Ld. Agent for the complainant as well as Ld. Agent for O.P Nos. 1 & 2.  O.P No. 3 did not make any oral argument but he has filed written argument in this case.

             In this context, the following issues are necessarily come up for consideration to reach just decision of the case.

                                                                 POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Is the complainant a consumer u/s.2 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act ?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
3. Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?

                                   DECISION WITH REASONS

                 As all the points are interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.

                The complainant is a resident of Village Mill Road, P.O. & P.S. Falakata, Dist.-Alipurduar and O.P.No.1 / The Branch Manager, L.I.C.I also located at Falakata, P.O. & P.S. Falakata within the District of Alipurduar. The complainant made a policy on 28/03/2004 at LICI, Falakata Branch Vide Policy No.453482980 and in terms of the said policy the last premium was paid on 28/12/2015 and the date of maturity was fixed on 28/03/2016. It reveals from the record that the O.P received all the premiums and receipts thereof were issued to the complainant regularly.  Naturally, the complainant is a bona fide consumer of the O.Ps. Thus the complainant is a consumer as per provision of Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

                It is evident from the record that the residential address of the complainant is at Falakata as well as the Office of the O.Ps is also situated at Falakata i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The claim amount is also less than the pecuniary limit of this Forum. So, we find and hold that this Forum has ample jurisdiction to entertain this case.

                On hearing of argument of both parties and on perusal of the materials on record it is revealed that it is admitted fact that the complainant Nakuleswar Mohanta entered into an agreement with the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 through O.P 3 by executing a prescribed form of L.I.C.I. on 31^st March, 2004   (proposal) for his life coverage when he was fifty eight years aged (Annerxure-5 as submitted by O.P Nos. 1 & 2). His life coverage Policy No. is 453482980. O.P No. 1 issued the certificate L.I.C’S JEEVAN SARAL (WITH PROFITS) in the name of the complainant (as proposer and Life Assured). On this certificate it is mentioned that the death of the commencement of Risk is under Table & Term is 165-12. Sum Assured is Rs. 1, 00,000/- in death benefit. Payment installment amount is Rs. 1225/- per quarter and due date of premium of every quarter is on 28^th instant of MARCH, JUNE, SEPTEMBER & DECEMBER of the year. Proposal No. is 12720. Date of commencement is on 28-03-2004. Date of last payment is 28-12-2015. Date of maturity is on 28-03-2016. But Column of Maturity Sum Assured (Rs.) is lying blank on the certificate (Perused the original).

                As per terms of the certificate the complainant made regular payment of the policy amounting Rs. 58,800/- and O.P No. 1 issued 48^th receipts of payment to that effect in the name of the complainant (Perused the original receipts).

                The complainant insured his Life to the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 when he was 58^th years aged and the date of the maturity of the policy is on 28-03-2016 but fortunately the complainant is still alive. Subsequently he changed the nominee of his policy in the name of his son Subhendu Mohanta in lieu of his wife Indubala Sinha (Mohanta) ; his wife ; on 13^th April, 2007.

                Date of Birth of the complainant is 10/02/1946 and the date of maturity of the Policy is on 28/03/2016. Therefore the age of the complainant is on the date of maturity of the Policy is 70 years 1 ( one) month and 18 days which is normal longevity of a person. He made payment of Rs. 58,800/-. Due to his long-life up to the date of maturity of the Policy on 28/03/2016 he will get Rs. 26,541/- (Rs. 19,660/- as basic amount + Rs. 6,881/- as Loyalty Addition) against his such payment is absurd to believe that having been well-conversant with the terms and conditions of Table 165-12 the complainant has executed the agreement (proposal) with the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 on 31/03/2004.

                It is true that Insurance Company earns profits in legitimate way which is different with Banking System in interest. Death of the policy holder before last payment gives benefits to the Legal heir(s) / nominee (s). But living alive of the insuree does not amount that it should creates his fault against which his deposited amount be reduced like penalty on him.

                The sentence, “Under this product death cover will be same irrespective of age at entry and term but the sum payable at maturity will differ for different entry ages and terms” in column-2 in INTRODUCTION OF LIC’S JEEVAN SARAL WITH PROFITS (Table No. 165) (Document No. ‘6’ submitted by the O.P Nos. 1 & 2) are ambiguous / confusional to Column No. 4 of the same document, “BENEFITS”; on maturity i.e. Maturity Sum assured, plus Loyalty Additions, if any”. Under this uncertain / unspecific / ambiguous state of the terms and conditions we do not consider it that having been fully aware of the terms and conditions of Table No. 165 the complainant wrote affirmative “Yes” in Column No. 14 of the proposal (Document No. 5 submitted by O.P Nos. 1 & 2). If the O.P side would clarify and explain the terms and conditions of Table No. 165 to the complainant clearly in that event the complainant could have been refrained from executing the proposal (Agreement). It is presumed that the complainant has made payment regularly believing his sum assured of Rs. 1, 00,000/- . That apart the letters dated 26/12/2015, 28/12/2015, 02/02/2016 and March, 2016 of the O.P side and keeping blank the Column Maturity Sum Assured (Rs.) on the certificate L.I.C’S JEEVAN SARAL (WITH PROFITS) indicates there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

                Whereas document No. 6 of the O.P side is not a part of the proposal (Document-5) as such the reference of N.C.D.R.C., New Delhi (Order dated 19^th March, 2014) has no application here.

                 It is crystally clear that the complainant did not deposit the amount through L.I.C.  at a time and L.I.C. is not binding upon the Banking System in calculating interest. As such we are of the opinion that it should be justified to pass decree of sum assured Rs. 1, 00,000/- in favour of the complainant.

                Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Fees paid are correct.

                Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-

                                                                                     ORDERED

                that the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

                The complainant do get a decree amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- against the O.P Nos. 1 & 2.

                The complainant do get further decree amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and also do get further decree amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost against the O.P Nos. 1 & 2.

                Both the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the decreetal amount (Rs. 1,00,000/- + 10,000/- + 10,000/- = 1,20,000/- ) to the complainant within 30 days from this day failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree into execution according to law.

                In case of realization of the decreetal amount through execution the complainant will be entitled to 7% interest per annum on the decreetal amount (1, 20,000/-) from the date of filing of this case from 30/06/2016 till realization of the entire decreetal dues and both the O.P Nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay fine of Rs. 50/- (Fifty) per day to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipurduar till liquidation of entire decreetal dues.

                Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.

Dictated & Corrected by me-