Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/156

Umesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

the Branch Manager, LIC, India - Opp.Party(s)

MD. Iqbal Ansari

09 Mar 2022

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. to refund Rs. 1,25,000/- on account of surrender of insurance of JEEVAN AADHAR LIC policy and for payment of Rs.50,000/-, and Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation and litigation cost respectively to the complainant.

 

2.         Complainant’s case in brief is that complainant has obtained JEEVAN AADHAR policy from O.P. on 28.08.2002 vide policy No. 541306101 for 10 years with sum assured Rs. 1,25,000/- and his daughter Sunita became nominee of that very scheme/policy. Further case is that due to financial crisis complainant was in urgent need of money who intended to surrender that very policy in the office of O.P. but O.P. refused to take surrender inspite of specific provision of the policy. Further case is that inspite of repeated requests refund of Rs. 1,25,000/- was not made hence legal notice was served having no impact, thereafter, case has been filed with above mentioned prayer.

 

3.       O.P. has filed written statement mentioning therein that there is no cause of action for the case, which is barred by the principle of stopple , waiver and acquiescence. Further reply is that said policy has been designed for the benefit of handicapped dependants. Under the plan, an individual or member of HUF can take a policy on his own life to provide for a payment of a lump-sum and annuity to the handicapped dependant and annuity rates are already fixed and given separately and payment made is exempted u/s 80 D.D. of the Income Tax Act. Death claim amount liable to be paid 20% in lump-sum and balance 80% in the farm of annuity to be paid to the nominee under the policy. Further reply is that this policy is specially designed for the benefit of handicapped dependant and surrender is not allowed as per serial No. 13 of Co. circular Ref. CO/ACT/1572/4 Dtd. 01.01.1996 and said circular is also applicable in respect to alleged policy, hence claim of the complainant is legally not maintainable. Further reply is that monthly premium is Rs. 582/- hence total premium deposited comes to the tune of Rs. 69,840/- only hence complainant has made false claim. Further reply is that due to typographical error in the column No. 7 of the policy bond there is surrender clause which is not correct. As per decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi typographical mistakes are liable to be corrected and it will not effect the policy. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
4.       On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties following points are required to be decided by this Commission:-

1. Whether mere on the basis of clause 13 of the policy bond complainant is entitled to surrender the policy ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?

5. Following facts are admitted facts:-

1. That complainant has obtained JEEVAN AADHAR- WITHOUT PROFITS (with accident benefit) Policy No. 541306101 DT. 28.08.2002.
2. That monthly premium of that very policy was Rs. 582/-.
3. That date of last payment of premium was 28.07.2012.
4. That complainant has paid premium till the last date.
5. That nominee of the policy was daughter of the complainant namely Sunita.
6. That the nominee namely Sunita is handicapped daughter of the complainant.
7. That said policy was obtained for benefit of said Sunita.

6.      In support of claim the Leaned Counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of this Commission on clause 7 of the policy bond which is as follows:-

Guaranteed Surrender Value:-  This policy can be surrendered.

7.      Except above noted clause 7 of the policy bond there is no any other evidence on behalf of the complainant to show that as per law he was entitled to surrender the policy. Complainant is unable to show any provision of the policy in respect to the surrender value and mode of surrender of policy concerned. Learned Counsel for the complainant concedes on the fact that there is no any provision in the policy bond or any other place of the policy to show that what will be the surrender value of the policy and what will be mode of payment of that very value.
8.       On the other hand Learned Counsel for the O.P. (LIC) has drawn attention of this Commission on following provisions of policy bond as well as the provisions  related to the Circular Notification dt. 01.01.1996, the relevant terms and conditions of the policy bond and circular are as follow:-

As per policy bond paper following are the important and relevant terms and conditions for decision of this case:-

 

Benefits Payable and events on the happening of which they are payable	If the Policy is in force for full sum Assured in the event of death of the Life Assured Twenty percent of the amounts comprising of the Basic Sum Assured, Vested Guaranteed Additions and Terminal Addition if any, such amounts being hereinafter referred to as the Notional Sum Assured, will be payable in lump sum and the balance Eighty(80%) percent of the said Notional Sum Assured will be utilised to provide an annuity for 15 years certain and for life thereafter on the life of the handicapped dependent, based on the age last birthday of the said handicapped dependent on the date claimed.
To whom Benefits payable	The Proposer’s Nomine, being the handicapped dependent or any other person for the benefit of the handicapped dependent.
Period during which premiums payable	Till the stipulated of last payment or previous death of the Life Assured
Date when Premiums payable	On the Stipulated due date in EVERY MONTH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Guarante surrender Value: This Policy can be surrender

 

Special Provisions:-

1. The Policy is earmarked by the proposer and the Life Assured for the benefit

of handicapped dependent herein below named who has been represented to be dependent upon the Assured or him support or maintenance.

As per para 2,3,13,14 of the notification dt. 01.01.1996  of the L.I.C. following terms and conditions are important for decision of this case which are as follows:-

Para 2 Eligibility:-

The Plan has been specially designed to make provision for maintenance of handicapped dependants……………………The payment will be made to the nominee under the policy, who will be either the handicapped dependant or any other person or a trust, for the benefit of the handicapped dependant.

Para 3- Benefits:-

The Plan provides for payment of the claim amount partly in lump sum and partly in the form of annuity to the handicapped dependant or any other person or a trust nominated under the policy.

Para 13- Surrender Value:-

 Since this plan is specially designed for the benefit of handicapped dependant the surrender of the policy will not be allowed.

Para 14- Loan:-

Policy loan will not be available under this plan.

9       Learned Counsel for the O.P. Insurance Co. has placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in  “2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 302” Revision Petition No. 3833 of 2011

Virupaxappa I. Yaragatti, Versus The Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India. The para 13 and 14 of that very Judgment are important for the purpose of this case which are as follow:-

 “13. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Anil Kumar (Supra) the issue was “ whether Insurance Company can rectify typographical mistake and charge more premium, which is payable on term table 79-30”.It relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.P. Forest Company Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 6347 of 2000, where Apex Court held;

      “ that on the basis of typographical mistake which has been rectified in the records of the Company before the occurrence, insured cannot get benefit of typographical mistake. In that case insured took insurance cover for a period of 8 months whereas by typographical mistake, one year was mentioned in the insurance policy and insured was not held entitled for compensation on account of loss caused after 8 months but within 12 months of insurance policy on the basis of typographical mistake in the insurance cover”.

 14. In view of the above decision, it is clear that typographical mistakes can be rectified as and when they are No. iced. Thus, respondent has not committed any error in asking the petitioner to make payment of premium to continue as per term plan. Under these circumstances, there is No. deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Therefore, the State Commission vide its impugned order has rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent by dismissing the complaint of the petitioner/complainant filed before the District Forum.”

10.             As oral evidence complainant has examined himself as witness No. 1 and during examination-in-chief he has stated that his daughter is ill and for her treatment he want to surrender the policy. On this aspect we would like to mention here that no where there is such pleadings in the complaint petition, in this way such statement is subsequent development made by the complainant. However there is no paper to show that there was any illness to the daughter of the complainant.
11.          On careful perusal of above mentioned terms and conditions of the policy bond and the notification dt. 01.01.1996 of the LIC it is apparent that there is no any provision in respect to surrender of JEEVAN AADHAR Plan. On joint reading of all the provisions it is not disclosing that what will be surrender value of the policy concerned and what will be mode of surrender.
12.         Another important fact is that the complainant has already paid entire premiums and now policy is ready for giving benefit to the handicapped daughter of the complainant for whose benefit it has been purchased.
13.          Taking the prayer of the complainant with another angle which will show that acceptance of the prayer will amount to deprive a handicapped from the benefit for which she is entitled under the policy concerned.
14.        In light of above discussions specially considering the terms and conditions of the policy as mentioned above and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above noted cases we are of the opinion that in the policy bond due to typographical error condition No. 7 has been printed which is liable to be ignored.
15.        Therefore, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. Insurance Co. and case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this case is dismissed with cost.