Date of Filing      : 29.07.2021

                                                                                                                        Date of Disposal: 23.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                  THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A,B.L.,                                                             .....MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com.                                                                        ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.34/2021

THIS TUESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

Mr. T.V.Ananthanarayanan,

No.3/205, Secretariat Colony,

No.2/3, Pallam Street, Ambattur,

Chennai 600 053, Thiruvallur District.                                                   ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

1.The Senior Branch Manager,

    M/s.Life Insurance Corporation of India,

    Ambattur Branch,

    Venkatapuram, Ambattur, Chennai -53.

 

2.The Senior Divisional Manager,

   C.R.M Department,

   M/s.Life Insurance Corportation of India,

   Divisional Office – II, C-47,

   2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Anna Nagar Plaza,

   Anna Nagar, Chennai -600 040.

 

3.The Chairman,

   M/s.Life Insurance Corporation of India,

   5th Floor, West Wing,“Yogakshma“,

   Jeevan Bhima Marg,

   Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.                                        ..........Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                    :   Party in Person.

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2                   :   Mr.S.Sushil Kumar, Advocate. 

Counsel for the 3rd opposite party                           : Exparte.

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 04.08.2022 in the presence of party in person/complainant and Mr.S. Sushil Kumar Advocate counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2  and upon 3rd opposite party remining exparte and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in the matter of issuance of the policy along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.8,61,000/- with 12% interest per annum to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation with 12% interest per annum for the mental agony, hardships, strain and inconvenience caused by the act of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.71,730/- towards cost of the complaint. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It was submitted by the complainant that he took Jeevan Saral Policy in the year 2010 for his daughter Kum.T.A.Aiswarya  who was the life assured for a period of 10 years and the maturity sum assured was Rs.6,00,000/-.  The Life Assured had not opted for Rider under the Accident Benefit sum Assured and term ride sum assured under the above plan. The policy document No.719390001 was issued by the opposite party on 13.12.2010.  The yearly premium payable was Rs.28,224/-  and the maturity benefit was clearly printed in the policy documents. “in the event of the Life Assured surviving the date of maturity a sum equal to Maturity Sum Assured in force after partial surrenders, if any, along with the corresponding loyalty addition, if any, shall be payable.”  It was therefore submitted that on the rear page of the Brochure (Page No.2) Maturity Benefit/Sum Assured was indicted against the payment of monthly premium.  As per the same if the customer is making monthly payment of Rs.2000/- for a period of 10 years the Maturity Benefit (S.A) assured is Rs.5,00,000/-,   hence for the annual period of payment of Rs.28,224/- for 10 years the maturity Benefit was Rs.6,00,000/- as per the policy document.  It is submitted by the complainant that he paid all the premiums in full in respect of the said policy for a term of 10 years without any default. Hence the Maturity sum assured of Rs.6,00,000/- as committed and printed in the policy document by the opposite party was payable along with Loyalty additions to the life assured on completion of the policy term of 10 years as the policy matured on 11.12.2020 and that the life assured was surviving the date of maturity.  However, just 10 days before the policy maturity date the opposite party sent a letter to the life assured stating that there had been a typographical error in the policy schedule and informed her that the maturity sum assured was only Rs.2,68,176/-  and that the death benefit sum assured under the main plan was Rs.6,00,000/-.  The complainant submitted that the typographical error ought to have been brought to the notice of the life assured within the free look period of 15 days from the date of issue of the policy i.e., before 29.12.2010 itself and if it had been done so, the complainant would have withdrawn the policy to avoid further financial loss and would have asked for the refund of the first annual premium payment.  The complainant thus submitted that the opposite party had violated the terms and conditions.  Hence after lodging a complaint through online portal of INGRAM (Integrated Grievance Redressal Mechanism) and after several attempts the opposite party replied that there was a typographical error and the maturity sum assured was not Rs.6,00,000/- as printed in the policy documents.  Further the complainant sent an email to M/s.IRDAI, Hyderabad along with complaint form with scanned copies of LIC policy document for which the IRDAI replied that already complaint has been registered and the same would be resolved soon.  When the complainant sought for information, the same was denied in the proceedings before Insurance Ombudsman.  The complainant was not allowed to express his view but was told that the issue would be resolved within one month.  Thus disputing the opposite parties action in unilaterally modifying/altering the maturity sum assured of Rs.6,00,000/- which is clearly printed in the Jeevan Saral Policy document No.719390001 to be payable to the life assured on surviving the full policy terms after payment of entire premium to 2,68,176/- as clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as follows;

To direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.8,61,000/- with 12% interest per annum to the complainant;

To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation with 12% interest per annum for the mental agony, hardships, strain and inconvenience by the act of the opposite parties;

To pay a sum of Rs.71,730/- towards cost of the complaint.

Crux of defence by the opposite parties 1 & 2:-

The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version disputing the complaint allegations stating that the complainant had misunderstood that the maturity sum assured was Rs.6,00,000/- when only the death benefit sum assured was mentioned as Rs.6,00,000/- .  It is admitted that the maturity sum assured was left blank.  The opposite party admits that they have sent a letter to the complainant and the policy holder before the date of maturity that while printing the policy schedule certain typographical error had occurred and later sent a correct policy schedule.  It was submitted that as the maturity sum assured was left blank in the earlier policy document in page 1, it was corrected by the opposite party on their verification. Further they submitted that it is the duty of the complainant to verify all the terms and conditions of the policy document within the pre look period and now then cannot blame the opposite party for the wrong committed by them.  As the notice and policy were issued only to the opposite party 1 & 2, the 3rd opposite party is not a necessary party and hence the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties.  The IRDA never advised the complainant to approach the Insurance ombudsmen but the complainant on his own preferred complaint before Insurance Ombudsman and on hearing both sides, the complaint was disposed off.  The allegation that the complainant was not allowed to express his view in the video conference meeting and his mike was muted in the hearing with the Insurance Ombudsman was denied. In fact the insurance ombudsman heard the complainant and informed that the order of the Ombudsman will be received within one month.  On 06.09.2021 the award was received by the opposite party and the award directs the insurer to return the premiums collected under the above policy with interest at the rate specified in Rule No.17(7) of the Insurance ombudsman Rules 2017, from the respective dates of receipt of premium. If the policy holder submits the original policy document and the discharge vouchers were received by opposite party they were ready to settle the maturity sum assured of Rs.2,68,176/- along with the loyalty addition of Rs.1,13,975/- in total Rs.3,82,151/-.  It is submitted that for the mental agony, compensation does not arise.  It is further submitted that the opposite party had not caused any breach of terms and conditions under the insurance contract and there is no cause of action arises to the complainant to file the present complaint and hence contending all the allegations of the complainant as false the opposite parties sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A41 were marked.  On the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 were filed. In spite of sufficient opportunities the 3rd opposite party did not appear before this Commission and hence he was set ex-parte for for non appearance and for non filing of written version. 

Points for consideration:

Whether the deficiency in service alleged against the opposite parties by the complainant in the issuance of JEEVAN SARAL POLICY with respect of the maturity sum assured has been proved by the complainant by acceptable evidence?

If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point:1

On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;

LIC Jeevan Saral Policy document dated 13.12.2010 was marked as Ex.A1;

LIC’s Jeevan Saral Brochure was marked as Ex.A2;

Detail of annual premium was marked as Ex.A3;

LIC’s letter with postal cover dated 03.10.2020 was marked as Ex.A4;

INGRAM online complains were marked as Ex.A5 to Ex.A9; 

Copy of e-mail to NCH was marked as Ex.A10;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 09.01.2021 was marked as Ex.A11;

Reply notice of the 2nd opposite party dated 17.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A12;

Proceedings of the NCDRC, New Delhi was marked as Ex.A13;

Money life Digital Team Article was marked as Ex.A14;

Complainant’s e-mail to M/s.IRDAI, Hyderabad dated 10.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A15;

M/s. IRDAI’s e-mail to complainant dated 16.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A16;

Complainant’s e-mail to M/s.IRDAI, Hyderabad dated  17.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A17;

M/s. IRDAI’s e-mail to the 2nd opposite party dated 22.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A18;

RTI Query filed with CPIO of the opposite party at Mumbai dated 29.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A19;

Response of CPIO of opposite party at Mumbai dated 12.04.2021 was marked as Ex.20;

RTI Query filed with FAA of the opposite party at Mumbai dated 30.04.2021 was marked as Ex.A21;

Response of FAA of opposite party at Mumbai dated 12.05.2021 was marked as Ex.A22;

Email sent by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party was marked as Ex.A23;

Second appeal under RTI filed with CIC, Delhi dated 25.05.2021 was marked as Ex.A24;

CIC’s letter dated 27.05.2021 was marked as Ex.A25;

Revised reply by complainant to CIC, New Delhi dated 21.06.2021 was marked as Ex.A26;

Acknowledgement mail of CIC, New Delhi dated 01.07.2021 was marked as Ex.A27;

Complainant email to office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 19.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A28;

Complainant email to office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 26.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A29;

Response of Insurance Ombudsman dated 30.03.2021 was marked as Ex.A30;

Complainant’s reply to Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 18.04.2021 was marked as Ex.A31;

Email of complainant to Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 25.05.2021 was marked as Ex.A32;

Complainant’s RTI query filed with Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 27.05.2021 was marked as Ex.A33;

Complainant’s email to Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 22.06.2021 was marked as Ex.A34;

Letter of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 21.06.2021 was marked as Ex.A35;

Email of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 05.07.2021 was marked as Ex.A36;

Complainant’s response to Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 05.07.2021 was marked as Ex.A37;

Complainant’s email to Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai dated 13.07.2021 was marked as Ex.A38;

Award of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai, dated 31.08.2021 was marked as Ex.A39;

LIC’s Jeevan Saral Policy document No.719427827 dated 21.12.2010 was marked as Ex.A40;

Authorization letter given by L/A Miss T.A.Aishwarya dated 28.10.2021 was marked as Ex.A41;

On the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 the following documents were filed in support of their contentions;

Jeevan Saral Circular with Annexures I & II was marked as Ex.B1;

Copy of bond dated 13.10.2010 was marked as Ex.B2;

Copy of proposal submitted was marked as Ex.B3;

CRM letter dated 03.10.2020 was marked as Ex.B4;

Copy of award of Insurance Ombudsman was marked as Ex.B5;

ICMS complaint and reply was marked as Ex.B6;

NCH complaint and reply was marked as Ex.B7;

NCH complaint and reply was marked as Ex.B8;

Legal notice was marked as Ex.B9;

ICMS complaint and reply was marked as Ex.B10;

Reply for CPGRAM complaint was marked as Ex.B11;

RTI reply was marked as Ex.B12;

RTI appeal was marked as Ex.B13;

Heard the party in person/complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.  The crux of the arguments by the party in person is that vide policy Document No. 719390001 he had taken Jeevan Saral Policy for his daughter in the year 2010 for a period of 10 years for a maturity sum assured of Rs.6,00,000/- and the premium was fixed at Rs.28,224/-.  While the complainant was paying the premium without any default before 10 days of maturity he received a letter from the opposite parties that there are certain typographical errors in the policy schedule as per the correct schedule the maturity sum assured was not Rs.6,00,000/- but it was only Rs.2,68,176/- and further informing that only the death benefit sum assured under the main plan was Rs.6,00,000/-.  It is argued that the insurance contracts are covered under Indian Contract Act 1872 and hence statement of the opposite parties offering less Maturity sum assured against the original maturity sum assured of Rs.6,00,000/- clearly printed in policy document No.719390001 (SL.No.0021560) is “Breach of Contract’ as per Section 74 of Indian Contract Act 1872.  Further he also submitted that as per section 45 of Insurance Act 1938, no life Insurance Policy can be called into question on ground of mis-statement or wrong disclosure after two years of the policy coming into force. Thus, he submitted that after lapse of 10 years and receiving the entire premium as agreed, the opposite parties are not entitled to alter the maturity sum assured as per the whims and surmises. 

On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties argued that the policy document originally issued with the maturity sum assured column blank and the six lakhs was printed near the maturity sum assured was actually the death benefit and the policy terms never indicated that six lakhs would be the maturity sum assured.  He further argued that the complainant had wrongly understood the word date of maturity of sum equal to the maturity sum assured in force and maturity sum assured and death benefit sum assured under main complaint is different.  He argued that the complainant did not prove how he had arrived at the maturity sum assured as Rs.6,00,000/-.  Further he argued that in the free look period of 15 days the complaint would have noted the blank in the maturity sum assured column and approached the opposite parties which he did not to do so.  Totally it is submitted that the maturity amount payable under the policy as per the terms and conditions is only Rs.3,82,151/- and they were always ready to provide the same to the complainant on submission of all the original documents.

To avoid repetition we are discussing only the essential point that are necessary to determine the real issues.  We perused the documents provided by the both parties and the pleadings submitted by them. It would be seen with naked eyes by this Commission that as per the Ex.A1, the policy document under the column maturity sum assured Rs.6,00,000/- was printed at first. It is highly unacceptable to believe the contention raised by the opposite parties that the six lakhs was mentioned only in the second serial number printed as Death Benefit Sum Assured.  It is not acceptable that the maturity sum assured column was left blank. It is also seen that the opposite parties themselves had accepted that the maturity sum assured is left blank but no convincing reason has been given by them as to why the maturity sum assured was left blank in a document which is conclusive in all aspects and with the terms and conditions.  .  Further they have also admitted that there are certain typographical errors in the policy document for which they have sent a letter with correct particulars which is sent only before 10 days of the maturity of the policy.  Thus as rightly pointed out by the complainant when the complainant was made to believe that the maturity sum assured was Rs.6,00,000/- as found in the policy document, the opposite parties are not permitted to go back and alter the maturity sum assured for a lesser amount which is highly prejudicial to the complainant. Further the contention of the opposite parties that only when they were preparing to credit the maturity sum assured they came to know about the blank in the maturity sum assured in the policy schedule and had sent the correct policy schedule with respect to the policy document is highly unacceptable in the facts and circumstances.  The argument by the complainant that the principal of free look period of 15 days applies to both parties is to be accepted.  Further it is also seen that the ombudsmen had clearly held that the opposite parties keeping the column of maturity sum assured column blank is a clear violation and has held in its Award as follows;

Regulation No.9 (1) (iv) of IRDAI (Protection of Policy holders’ Interests) Regulations, 2017 stipulates that “benefits payable and the contingencies upon which these are payable and the other terms and conditions of the insurance contract’ shall be clearly stated in the life insurance policy.  In the case on hand, “Schedule” of the policy document clearly stats the contingencies upon which the benefits are payable.  However, as mentioned above, the “Maturity Sum Assured” benefit is not at all printed in the policy schedule and kept blank.  This would amount to clear violation of the provision of IRDAI (Protection of Policy holders’ Interests) Regulations, 2017. 

Further it also held that the doctrine of good faith which is the underlying principle of life insurance contract requires that both parties to the contract must honestly disclose all relevant information and each of the governing terms and conditions of the insurance policy is required to be mandatorily mentioned in the policy document enabling the policyholder to take a judicious decision during the free-look period as to whether to continue or discontinue the policy. Further they also had held that the act of the opposite parties amounts to “Mis-selling” in their words as follows;

i. Having regard to the above, it is the considered view of this Forum that the insurer’s action would clearly amount to Mis-representation of the terms and conditions of the subject policy and as a sequel thereto, would be construed as “Mis-selling”. As such, the proper course of action for the insurer is to refund the premiums received under the subject policy along with “Interest” as envisaged in Rule 17(7) of the policy document read with Regulation 14(iv) of IRDA (Protection of Policy holders’ Interests) Regulations, 2017 and also, as demanded by the complainant.

ii) As per the aforesaid Rule, the complainant shall be entitled to such interest at a rate per annum, as specified in the Regulations framed under the IRDAI Act, 1999 from the date of the claim ought to have been settled till the date of payment of the amount awarded by the Ombudsman.  Further, Regulation 14(iv) of IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders’ interest Regulations, 2017 envisages that in case of any delay on the part of the insurer in settling the maturity claim on the due date, the life insurer shall pay interest at the a rate which is 2% above the Bank rate from the date of payment or date of receipt of last necessary document from the insured/claimant whichever is later.  In the instant case, interest at the specified rate should be paid from the date of receipt of the various instalment premiums and directing the opposite parties to refund the premium paid with interest.  The said award of the insurance Ombudsman was also not carried out by the opposite parties.

Further our view is supported by a recent decision rendered by the Hon’ble NCDRC in REVISION PETITION NO. 2282 OF 2018 dated 02.03.2020 in  LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.  Versus PARVATI BAI  MAHADEV MOGRE, an identical case holding LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA / opposite party liable in its words as follows,

Policy is a contract of utmost good faith and parties are bound by this contract. If any typing error is brought to the notice of the other party by any party before the claim becomes due, it can definitely be corrected.  In the present case, the rectification of error has been sought once the question of final maturity amount has come up before the Insurance Company. Moreover, the question is whether the complainant would have gone for the policy, had he known that on maturity he will get only Rs.38,970/- after paying regular premium of Rs.1,225- quarterly for 10 years. During the currency of the policy, the insurance company did not point out any mistake in the policy, nor sent any corrected policy document. Now, that the policy has matured and the claim became due on maturity, the insurance company is claiming the defect in the initial contract. The mistake or typographical error in the contract does not seem to be obvious and even if the mistake is justified on the basis of table 165 of the LIC, it is seen that this table was not part of the policy and was not supplied along with the policy document, therefore, the complainant may not be bound by this table, rather, the complainant and the insurance company both are bound by the written contract of insurance as mentioned in the policy document. The policy contract has to be interpreted in the terms as agreed in the contract by the contracting parties. Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs.Chandmull Jain, [1966 ] 3 SCR 500, has held as under:-

17." ...In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves."

7.      In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cherian II(1999 )CPJ 13 (SC ), it has been observed as follows:-

"16. The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. That being so, the insured has also to act strictly in accordance with the statutory limitations or terms of the policy expressly set out therein."

8.      In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 644, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-

"6. ....The terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something: Howsoever liberally we may construe the policy but we cannot take liberalism to the extent of substituting the words which are not intended.

9. ...It is settled law that terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties, they have to abide by the definition given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy should be interpreted with reference to the terms of policy and not with reference to the definition given in other laws. It is a matter of contract and in terms of the contract the relation of the parties shall abide and it is presumed that when the parties have entered into a contract of insurance with their eyes wide open, they cannot rely on definition given in other enactment.

14. Therefore, it is settled law that the terms of the contract has to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to it. No outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous."

9.  Based on the above authoritative judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the contract conditions of the policy cannot be changed or interpreted differently by any forum and therefore, the alleged typographical error cannot be accepted for changing the same after 10 years of the initial agreed contract i.e. after expiry of the contract period.

 Under these circumstances we have no other option but to hold that the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in service in the issuance of the policy document making the complainant to believe that the maturity sum assured was Rs.6,00,000/- and to continue the policy with the same terms for ten years and later modifying the same unilaterally . The point is answered accordingly. 

Point No.2:

With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant as we have held above that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service we direct the opposite parties to pay the balance maturity sum assured of Rs.2,07,009/- along with admissible bonus on the total maturity amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.  Further we also award Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties which caused huge mental agony and hardship to the complainant. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the 1st to 3rd Opposite Parties; 

a) to pay the balance maturity sum assured of Rs.2,07,009/- along with admissible bonus on the total maturity amount of Rs.6,00,000/-; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 23rd day of August 202.

 

     Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                                              Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                  MEMBER-I                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 13.12.2010 LIC Jeevan Saral Policy document. Xerox

Ex.A2 .............. LIC’s Jeevan Saral Brochure (Table No.T-165) Xerox

Ex.A3 .............. Detail of annual premuim. Xerox

Ex.A4 03.10.2020 LIC’s letter with postal cover. Xerox

Ex.A5 03.12.2020 INGRAM Online complaint.  (Docket .No.2423990) Xerox

Ex.A6 15.12.2020 INGRAM Online complaint (Docket .No.2448885) Xerox

Ex.A7 24.12.2020 INGRAM Online complaint(Docket .No.2466992) Xerox

Ex.A8 26.12.2020 INGRAM Online complaint (Docket .No.2468274) Xerox

Ex.A9 29.12.2020 INGRAM Online complaint(Docket .No.2473978) Xerox

Ex.A10 15.12.2020 Copy of e-mail to NCH. Xerox

Ex.A11 09.01.2021 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A12 17.02.2021 Reply notice of the 2nd opposit party. Xerox

Ex.A13 11.12.2018 Proceedings of the NCDRC, New Delhi. Xerox

Ex.A14 14.01.2020 Money life Digital Team Article. Xerox

Ex.A15 10.03.2021 Complainant’s e-mail to M/s.IRDAI, Hyderabad. Xerox

Ex.A16 16.03.2021 M/s.IRDAI’s e-mail to complainant. Xerox

Ex.A17 17.03.2021 Complainant’s e-mail to M/s.IRDAI, Hyderabad Xerox

Ex.A18 22.03.2021 M/s.IRDAI’s e-mail to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A19 29.03.2021 RTI Query filed with CPIO of the opposite party at Mumbai. Xerox

Ex.A20 12.04.2021 Response of CPIO of opposite party at Mumbai. Xerox

Ex.A21 30.04.2021 RTI Query filed with FAA of the opposite party at Mumbai. Xerox

Ex.A22 12.05.2021 Response of FAA of opposite party at Mumbai. Xerox

Ex.A23 ............ e-mail sent by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A24 25.05.2021 Second appeal under RTI filed with CIC, Delhi. Xerox

Ex.A25 27.05.2021 CIC’s letter Xerox

Ex.A26 21.06.2021 Revised reply by complainant to CIC, New Delhi. Xerox

Ex.A27 01.07.2021 Acknowledgement mail of CIC, New Delhi. Xerox

Ex.A28 19.03.2021 Complainant e-mail to Office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A29 26.03.2021 Complainant e-mail to Office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A30 30.03.2021 Response of O/o. Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A31 18.04.2021 Complainant’s reply to O/o.Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A32 25.05.2021 e-mail of the complainant to O/o.Insurance ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A33 27.05.2021 Complainant’s RTI query filed with O/o.Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A34 22.06.2021 Complainant’s e-mail to O/o.Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A35 21.06.2021 Letter of O/o.Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A36 05.07.2021 Email of O/o.Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A37 05.07.2021 Complainant’s response to O/o.Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai. Xerox

Ex.A38 13.07.2021 Complainant’s e-mail to O/o.Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai Xerox

Ex.A39 31.08.2021 Award of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai Xerox

Ex.A40 21.12.2010 LIC’s Jeevan Saral policy document No.719427827. Xerox

Ex.A41 28.10.2021 Authorization letter given by L/A Miss.T.A.Aishwarya. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2:-

 

Ex.B1 ............. Jeevan Saral Circular with Annexures I &II. Xerox

Ex.B2 13.10.2010 Copy of policy bond. Xerox

Ex.B3 .............. Copy of proposal submitted. Xerox

Ex.B4 03.10.2020 CRM letter Xerox

Ex.B5 .............. Copy of Award of Insurance Ombudsman. Xerox

Ex.B6 05.12.2020 ICMS complaint and reply. Xerox

Ex.B7 ............... NCH complaint and reply. Xerox

Ex.B8 ............... NCH complaint and reply. Xerox

Ex.B9 ............... Legal notice. Xerox

Ex.B10 ............... ICMS complaint and reply. Xerox

Ex.B11 .............. Reply for CPGRAM complaint. Xerox

Ex.B12 ............... RTI reply. Xerox

Ex.B13 ............... RTI appeal. Xerox

 

 

       Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                  MEMBER-I                                               PRESIDENT