(Delivered on  22/04/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.

1.         Appellant- National Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Nagpur has preferred the   present appeal   feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23/04/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur  in Consumer Complaint No. 147/2015, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent  came to be partly allowed and appellant is directed to pay the policy benefit  of Rs. 48,960/ along  with interest  at the rate of 10% from the date of maturity. (Appellant shall hereinafter be referred as Opposite Party and respondent as Complainant for the sake of convenience).

2.         Short facts leading to filing of the present complaint may be narrated as under,

            Complainant No.1- Sitabai Wd/o Mahadeo Khandale is the wife of deceased Mahadeo Khandale and Complainant No. 2- Mr. Ankush S/o. Mahadeo Khandale is the son of deceased Mahadeo Khandale. O.P.No.1 is the Insurance Company having a branch at Warora,Taluka-Warora, District Chandrapur. The complainants have alleged that the deceased  Mahadeo  Arjun Khandale had taken  one policy on 21/03/2005 namely Jeevan Saral (with profits) floated  by the O.P.- Life Insurance Corporation  of India  for the assured sum of Rs. 48,960/- along with amount of loyalty  and interest. As per terms and conditions of the Jeevan Saral Policy was matured on 21/03/2015 and sum assured was 48,960/-. The complainants have alleged that deceased Mahadeo had paid  the premium of Rs. 408/- per month regularly for the periods of 10 years and no premium was remaining unpaid. In the month of April, 2015 the complainants were in need of the amount and so they approached the O.P.- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch at Warora for claiming   the sum assured of Rs. 48,960/- but the officers  of the O.P. told the complainant that  the complainant was entitled  for  sum assured of Rs. 34,895/- only and not Rs. 48,960/- which was wrongly printed on the policy. The complainant  then sought  necessary  information  from the  O.P. but same was not supplied  nor the amount  of sum assured  as promised  was paid  to the complainant.  The complainant  has contended that  the  nonpayment  of the sum assured  in the Jeevan Saral Policy  of Rs. 48,960/-, amounted  to deficiency  in service  on the part of the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3. The complainant then issued a notice to the O.Ps. and same was duly  served but still there was no compliance  on the part of the  O.Ps. The complainant  was therefore compelled  to file the complaint  under  the Consumer Protection Act,1986 regarding  deficiency  in service  and also for mental and physical harassment  caused  to the complainant.

3.         O.P. appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version on record.  The O.P. has admitted that the complainant- Mahadeo had taken a policy and was also paid the premium regularly. However, the O.P. has denied that the amount of Rs. 48,960/- had come to be assured as per the policy taken by the complainant.  On the contrary the O.P. has taken a stand that the amount of Rs. 48,960/- as sum assured was wrongly and incorrectly printed on the Jeevan Saral Policy and in fact an amount of Rs. 34,895/- was only payable to the complainant. The O.P. has therefore, contended that the complaint filed by the complainant was untenable in law and needs to be dismissed.

4.         The learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur thereafter went through the  oral and documentary evidence, affidavit  filed on record by the complainant as well as  O.P. The learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur also went through the written notes of argument filed by the both the parties. After  appreciating  the documentary  evidence filed on record, the learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur came to the conclusion  that the  complainant  had  regularly paid  premium for Jeevan Saral  Policy  and so  was entitled  for a sum of Rs. 48,960/- as mentioned  in the Policy.  The learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur  also did not  accept the  submissions made on behalf of the O.P.- Life Insurance Corporation of India and therefore, partly allowed the complaint  by passing  judgment and order dated 23/04/2018. Against this judgment and order dated 23/04/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur the present appellant- Life Insurance Corporation of India has come up in appeal.

5.         We have heard Mr. P.S. Kasture, learned advocate for the appellant. There is no serious dispute that the deceased complainant – Mahadeo  Arjun Khandale had taken Jeevan Saral  Policy  floated  by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on  21/03/2005. There is also no serious dispute that after taking the policy on 21/03/2005, the complainant had regularly paid the premium of Rs. 408/- per month. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy taken by the complainant, the complainant was to get  a sum of Rs. 48,960/- along with amount of  loyalty and interest.

6.         On hearing  the learned advocate  for  the appellant , a very short point  arises for  our determination  and same  revolves  around the policy  documents taken  by the complainant- deceased  Mahadeo Khandale. It is vehemently submitted by  Mr. P.S. Kasture, learned advocate  for the appellant  that  though  the  respondent /complainant  had taken  Jeevan Saral Policy  on 21/03/2005, actually sum assured  in the policy  was in fact Rs. 34,895/-  and amount  of Rs. 48,960/-  printed  on the policy was  in fact a printing  and typing error and in fact the sum assured  was Rs. 34,895/- but the learned District Consumer Commission, Chandraur has not  applied its mind to the said document. During the course of argument Mr. P.S. Kasture, learned advocate  for the appellant has drawn our attention  to the copy of the policy  which is also filed on record.  As per submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant  the amount  of Rs. 48,960/- was  wrongly printed  and same  was not  payable  to the complainant  at all.  It is submitted by Mr. P.S. Kasture, learned advocate for the appellant that  the age of the complainant  at the time of taking the policy  was 54 years and as per calculations  on the  basis of the  premium  paid by the complainant  the amount payable  on the date of maturity  comes  to Rs. 34,895/- and not Rs. 48,960/-.

7.         In view of the submission made, we have also carefully gone through the copy of said policy taken by the deceased on 21/03/2005. Bare perusal of the policy documents clearly shows that the sum assured on maturity was mentioned as Rs. 48,960/- and not Rs. 34,895/- as claimed by the appellant /O.P. During the course of argument Mr. P.S. Kasture, learned advocate for the appellant has also  tried to make a submission that  though  there was typing error in the policy  documents, the same  was communicated to the complainant but we find  that  no such documents have been placed on record by  the  appellant  to substantiate  this contention and to show that  the said typing error was communicated  to the complainant who was the policy holder, at  earliest point of time.  In our view, in case   there was typing error or printing error in the policy documents the same should have been  immediately  communicated  to the policy  holder which has not been   done at all.

8.         On the other hand, the respondent /complainant has placed on record  documents to show that even the information  sought by the complainant/policy holder was not supplied to the complainant  and the same was supplied  in the year 2015 and not  when the  policy  was taken by the complainant.  As such in our view it was the  bounden duty of the  appellant/ O.P. to inform  the complainant  about  the typing  error at the time he took the policy  and so  it  is not now to open  the appellant  to take a such  plea  after the period  of maturity  is over.

9.         During the course of argument Mr. P.S. Kasture, learned advocate for the appellant  has heavily  relied upon  judgments  delivered by  the National Consumer Commission as under

 i.         Virupaxappa I Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Revision Petition No. 3833/2011, reported in Legal Digest, April 2014.

ii.          Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs.  Anil Kumar Jain, Revision Petition No.  2802 of 2011 Decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer  Commission on 11/02/2013.

iii.         Satya Deo Malviya Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, decided  by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission on 09, January, 2004.  

10.       We have also carefully  gone through  the aforesaid  judgments  delivered by the Hon’ble National Consumer  Commission. No doubt  in these judgments  the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission  dealing with  the typographical  error.  However, we are of the view that  the same are not directly  applicable to the facts of the  present case  for the reasons already  mentioned earlier.

 11.      Further, we have gone through  the impugned  order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur and the learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur has dealt with  all the aspects in elaborate  manner and so we feel that  the the findings given for the learned District Consumer Commission, Chandrapur do  not call for any  interference.

12.       In the light of aforesaid  facts we are therefore  unable to accept the contentions advanced by Mr. P.S. Kasture, the learned advocate for the appellant and so  we hold that the appeal is devoid of any substance and so we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Appeal is hereby dismissed.

ii.          Appellant to bear their own cost as well as cost of the respondent.

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.