Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The brief fact of the complainant, is that the complainant has purchased policy “Jeevan Sarala” from the OP commencing from 07.03.2005 and the maturity date was 07.03.2016. It is alleged inter-alia that the maturity value was Rs.1,25,000/- as mentioned in the policy itself. The complainant alleged to have paid all the premium dues. It is alleged that he was not paid the maturity amount after the maturity period over for which he contacted the OP but the OP issued a letter to the complainant stating that he is entitled to maturity sum assured 40,970/- which was wrongly typed out as Rs.1,25,000/- . The complainant contacted all OPs but could not get satisfactory reply. The complainant alleged to have paid Rs.67,364/- to the OP under the policy but did not get back the maturity amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency in service filed the complaint.
4. The OP filed the written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and case is barred by limitation. It is also plea of the OP that under “Jeevan Sarala” policy vide Table No.165-11 the policy has two sum assured, one is maturity sum and another is with death benefit. It is also averred that the sum assured on maturity have been wrongly typed as Rs.1,25,000/- on the policy and as per the plan of such policy the premium is fixed taking the age of the policy holder and term of the policy. It is alleged that after submission of original policy as per the policy conditions they settled amount but the complainant disputed the claim amount. The OP alleged to have settled to pay the actual sum assured to the policy holder Rs.40,970/- + Rs.15,364/- towards bonus but not the policy bond amount Rs.1,25,000/-. The complainant did not receive the amount. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
.5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ The complaint is allowed on contest. The Opp.party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand) only to the complainant towards the sum assured as mentioned in the policy bond alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of maturity 7.3.2016 till its actual payment to the complainant. Besides, the Opp.party is directed to pay cost of the litigation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand)only. The compliance of the directions shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him in 2015 they have written a letter to the complainant stating that the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- has been inadvertently typed in the policy bond as maturity amount but actually the sum assured is Rs.40,970/- upon maturity. Before the maturity amount payable they have already informed about the mistake to the complainant. The complainant was offered Rs.40,970/- + bonus Rs.15,364/- but the complainant refused to accept same. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and law. He further emphasized that any defect occurred at the instance of the OP should be viewed liberally. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the mistake admitted by the appellant after long 10 years is an admission of fault or shortcoming or defect. According to him, they are given impression that they are entitled to Rs.1,25,000/- but they were offered only Rs.40,970/- although he has already paid Rs.66,000/- as total premium amount. Therefore, he submitted to confirm the impugned order.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the policy from the OP and the policy in question shows that it has got only one maturity value worth as Rs.1,25,000/- and the premium Rs.1500/- per quarterly. It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid all the premiums for 11 years. It is also not in dispute that the appellant informed the complainant stating that as per the policy condition he is entitled to maturity amount of Rs.40,970/- but by mistake the amount Rs.1,25,000/- has been printed on the policy bond in question as maturity amount. Now the question arises whether the complainant is entitled to get back the maturity amount as reflected on the amount offered by the OP.
10. When the complainant has paid Rs.66,000/- but get back Rs.40,970/- as maturity amount it become inconceivable for us to digest. However, learned District Forum has disbelieved the story of the OP and allowed the complaint. We have gone through the policy and also found that Rs.1,25,000/- has been printed as maturity amount. When the complainant believing the same to be maturity amount and continued for 10 years to pay the premium with the hope to get Rs.1,25,000/- after maturity and at the last moment of the decision of the OP to pay Rs.40,970/- with bonus is definitely a shock to the complainant and same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. It is true to set right the matter before payment of last premium but it was too late to rectify the mistake at last hour. However, it is settled in law that the Op committed certain error and same should be liberally to be construed. However, in this case the liability lies on the OP but had action taken by the OP just after 1st premium paid same would have been more acceptable than rectifying said mistake just before the last date of premium.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, when the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the OP is required to pay the compensation for such mental agony and harassment to the complainant even if accepting that as per policy condition the complainant is entitled to get Rs.40,970/- + bonus of Rs.15,364/-.
12. From the foregoing discussion, we confirmed the impugned order but modified the operative portion of the order by directing OP to pay Rs.40,970/- + 15,364/- as per the policy condition and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment to the complainant by the OP. This order will be complied by the OP within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which all the payment will carry interest @ 12 % from the date of impugned order till date of payment.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
