DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 29th day of October 2007.<br /> <br /> Present : Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President in charge<br /> Smt.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.120/2006<br /> M.Abdul Rahiman<br /> 60 years<br /> S/o. K. Mohammed Rawther<br /> CITADEL, Kuppiyode Road<br /> Marutharode Post <br /> Palakkad – 678 008 - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> 1. The Branch Manager<br /> Palakkad Branch No.1<br /> Life Insurance Corporation of India<br /> Shornur Road<br /> Palakkad. <br /> <br /> 2. The Divisional Manager<br /> Life Insurance Corporation of India<br /> Divisional Office<br /> 4th Floor, M G Road<br /> Ernakulam- 682 011 - Opposite party <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Prof. O. Unnikrishnan, President in charge<br /> <br /> The complainant in his complaint submits that he had taken a Jeevan Suraksha Insurance Policy from the 1st opposite party for a notional cash option of Rs. 1 lakh with annual premium installments @ Rs.11,019/- for 5 years starting from 23.03.2001.<br /> <br /> 2 -<br /> The complainant remitted the first premium of Rs.11,019/- to the 1st opposite party and received a policy document. In accordance with a letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant sent back the policy document for some corrections and issue a new policy subsequently the complainant received a new policy document vide No.773535634 dated 20.04.2001 from the 1st opposite party during the month of September 2001.<br /> <br /> The complainant further alleges that as per this policy document he had to pay 5 yearly premium installments starting from 23.03.2001 to 23.03.2005 @ Rs.11,019/- for a Notional cash option of Rs.1 lakh and moreover the opposite parties will have to pay the complainant a monthly pension @ Rs.936/- commencing from 23.04.2006. The complainant submits that he had completed the premium payment without any default and was expecting the commencement of pension payment from April 2006 onwards.<br /> <br /> It is further submitted that the complainant had received a letter dated 13.07.2006 from the 1st opposite party intimating that his annuity was due for payment and he was asked to contact the opposite party office with original policy document as some corrections were to be made in the policy document.<br /> <br /> On 22.07.2006 the complainant met the Assistant Administrative Officer concerned at the 1st opposite party and he behaved callously and casually to the complainant and also informed that there was some mistake in the policy document and informed the complainant either to agree for a reduced monthly pension or to get a court order in favour of him to commence pension payment. The complainant submits that he was shocked and upset at the <br /> <br /> <br /> - 3 -<br /> behaviour of the Assistant Administrative Officer and met the Administrative Officer the 1st opposite party and complained about behaviour of the Asst. Administrative Officer. <br /> <br /> The complainant further alleges that he had sent a registered letter on 25.07.06 to the 1st opposite party by explaining the incidents at his office on 22.07.06. According to the complainant opposite party 1 had sent two letters dated 22.07.06 and 28.07.06 informing him to take an additional premium of Rs.21,615/- so that he will get the pension as per policy document among other options as suggested by the Divisional office, 2nd opposite party .<br /> <br /> It is averred in the complaint that the complainant had originally received a policy document, which was taken back by the 1st opposite party for rectifying some mistakes and was issued a new corrected policy during September 2001. But the 1st opposite party failed to communicate the complainant the nature of corrections made in 2001.<br /> <br /> Complainant in his complaint alleges that the opposite parties caused misery, financial loss and mental agony to the complainant by their action not paying the monthly pension as mandated in the policy document.<br /> <br /> Complainant is of the opinion that the aforementioned act of opposite party amounted to clear deficiency in service . Hence he has approached before this Forum and filed this complaint seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay the monthly pension @ Rs.936/- p m w e f 23.04.2006, interest @ 15% for the belated payment till realization and a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony, stress and strain suffered by the complainant.<br /> - 4 - <br /> Notice was issued to opposite party for appearance. Both the opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. <br /> <br /> The opposite parties denies all the averments in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted hereunder.<br /> <br /> The opposite party submits that the complainant had proposed for Jeevan Suraksha Policy with life cover depositing an amount of Rs.11,019/-. The sum proposed was Rs.50,000/- and age of proposer was 54 years. The policy issued to the complainant on 20.04.2001 vide number 773535634 was for a deferment period of 5 years commencing from 23.03.2001.<br /> <br /> It is also submitted that , by inadvertence, the opposite party issued a Jeevan Suraksha Policy of the Endowment type with guaranteed additions for Rs.50,000/- sum assured. Instead of issuing Jeevan Suraksha Policy with life cover the amount of monthly annuity shown in the policy document was Rs.936/-. This corresponds to annuity guaranteed for 15 years and for life thereafter. It is stated that when they found the mistake, the complainant was requested to return the policy document so that corrections could be made and the correct policy document could be issued in conformity with the proposal made by the complainant. On submission of the original policy document, a fresh policy document was issued to the complainant under Jeevan Suraksha with life cover plan. Due to inadvertence, the NCO was shown in the policy document as 1,00,000/- instead of Rs.71,090/-. <br /> <br /> It is further submitted that the opposite party detected the said mistake while processing the papers for commencing annuity payments, when the policy vesting date was approaching. According to the opposite party , the <br /> - 5 -<br /> annuity rates applicable to Jeevan Suraksha Policy are covered by the circular Ref: ACTL/1718/4 of the corporation dated 07.06.2000. As per the clarification No.2 of the circular the revised annuity rates unde4r Tabl3e No,45 will betaken as guaranteed rates and No.5 circular clarifies the premium rates for Jeevan Suraksha with life cover plans Rs.1000/-NCO which can be arrived at from Annexure 10 and Annexure 11(11) to 11(4). From Annexure 10 and Annexure 11(1) to 11(4) the total annual Tabular premium per thousand NCO works out to Rs.163.15(annual Tabular premium is Rs.160.75 and when life cover is chosen addition in Tabular annual premium for age 54 is Rs.2.4) The rebate for yearly mode of premium is 5% and hence the net annual Tabular premium per 1000 NCO works out to be Rs.155 (95% of Rs.163.15). If the annual Tabular premium per NCO is Rs.155 the yearly premium for NCO of Rs.71,090 is Rs.11,019/-. Therefore an yearly premium is Rs.11,019/- corresponds to Rs.71,090/- instead of 1,00,000/-. For NCO Rs. 1 Lakh an annual premium corresponds to Rs.15,342/-. Accordingly, the complainant was asked to pay Rs.21,615/- (5 x 15,342-11,019) for balance premium so that he could be paid pension @ 936/- per month corresponding to an NCO pf Rs. 1 Lakh. In the alternative complainant was offered an option to receive annuity at the rates corresponding premium Rs.11,019/- under Jeevan Suraksha Endowment type or NCO of Rs.71,090/- under Jeevan Suraksha policy with life cover as per letter dated 22.07.2006. In accordance with plan 145 (Table 45 renumbered) the monthly pension for an NCO of Rs.71,090/- is Rs.658 and for an NCO Rs.1,00,000/- the same is Rs.936/-. <br /> <br /> It is further stated that the monthly pension for a capital sum of Rs.68,750/- under the endowment funding type is Rs.637/-. It is also averred that the complainant was free to exercise one of the three options mentioned <br /> <br /> - 6 -<br /> above and receive the eligible pension as per the rates and terms of the corporation.<br /> <br /> As per the declaration along with the proposal submitted by the complainant forms the basis of the contract of assurance and the complainant is entitled to get annuity only at rates commensurate with the terms and rates of the corporation. The complainant cannot exploit inadvertent mistakes on the part of opposite party. The opposite party had also submitted that on the basis of the decision of Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs M/s. Mohanlal and Sons (1992(1) OPR 364(NC) that the complainant should not take unfair advantage of a mistake by using the Consumer Redressal Agency . They also averred that similar was the view expressed by the Apex Court and Honourable Punjab State Consumer Redressal Commission with regard to the clerical error in the policy document. There is no deficiency of service on their part and the complainant is not eligible for any relief claimed in the complaint. Hence the complaint has to dismissed with costs<br /> <br /> complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavits along with documents to substantiate their respective contentions. Complainant filed questionnaire and opposite party filed answers to it. Exbts A1 to A4 were marked from the side of complainant and Exbts B1 to B6 was marked from the side of opposite party.<br /> <br /> Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. We have perused the affidavits as well as documents marked before the forum<br /> <br /> <br /> - 7 -<br /> It is evident form Exbt B1, that the complainant had submitted a proposal for Jeevan Suraksha with life cover for deferred participation of profit on 19.03.01. From the Exbt B2 we noticed that the opposite party had issued Jeevan Suraksha (Endowment funding Policy with guaranteed addition) instead of life cover plan.<br /> <br /> It is obvious from Exbt B3 and from Exbt A1 that the opposite party had issued a fresh policy certificate under Jeevan Surakha with life cover plan by paying a premium of Rs,11,019/- per yearly starting from 23.03.01 for a notional cash option of Rs.1 Lakh along with monthly annuity of Rs.936/- commencing from 23.042006 after a deferment period of 5 years.<br /> <br /> It is an admitted fact that the complainant made the premium payment without any default. It is true from Exbt A2 and A4 that the complainant received a letter dated 13.07.06 and 22.07.2006 respectively from the opposite party stating that there was some inadvertant mistake in the policy document and the complainant had to remit an additional sum of Rs.21,615/- towards premium for getting annuity as well as NCO as shown in the policy document.<br /> <br /> It is crystal clear from the Exbt B2 that the date of vesting admissible benefits under the life cover plan scheme in the above said policy falls on 23.03.06. It is surprised to notice that the opposite party had issued a Jeevan Suraksha Endowment policy instead of Jeevan Suraksha policy with life cover as per the proposal form dated 17.03.01. Subsequently Jeevan Suraksha Policy with life cover was issued by correcting the said mistake. It is strange to accept the contention of opposite party that there was an inadvertant mistake in the policy document after a lapse of 5 years when the policy became matured and the annuity was due for payment.<br /> 8 -<br /> <br /> We are of the view that the authorities in charge of management of Life insurance Corporation should bear in mind its credibility and the reputation depends on its prompt and deficient service . The public in general, and crores of policy holders in particular look forward to prompt and efficient service from the corporation and therefore their approach should be one of the care and caution. It should not be dealt with mechanical and routine manner. There is no doubt that an offer has been made by the complainant and the opposite party has accepted the same by issuing of a policy certificate by means of which a valid accepted and concluded contract have been made between the parties. Now it is not proper and correct to violate the terms of the contract in any manner.<br /> <br /> However there is no ground to disbelieve the contention put forward by opposite party regarding the three options placed before the complainant from which the complainant was free to choose any one of the options and receive eligible pension as per the terms and conditions. It is viewed that the act of omission and commission on the part of opposite party has caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to get compensation. In light of the facts set forth above, we attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.<br /> <br /> Hence we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- as costs within one month from the date of communication of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 10% interest for the whole amount till realization.<br /> - 9 -<br /> The complainant shall exercise any of the 3 options put forward by the opposite party and accept the benefits accordingly.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of September, 2007 <br /> <br /> President in charge (SD) <br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant<br /> Ext.A1 – Insurance bond<br /> Ext.A2 – Lr. dtd. 13-07-06 sent by opposite party to complainant <br /> Ext.A3 (Series) – Copy of letter sent by complainant to opposite party dtd.25-01-06 along with acknowledgement<br /> Ext.A4 – Letter dtd.22-04-06 sent by opposite party to complainant <br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties <br /> <br /> Ext.B1 – Copy of Proposal for insurance<br /> Ext.B2 - Copy of revised annuity rates<br /> Ext.B3 (Series) – Copy of tabular annual premium (2 in Nos.)<br /> Ext.B4 – Lr. No.Actl.11723/4 dtd.23-06-2000<br /> Ext.B5 – Table of Deferred Annuity rates <br /> Ext.B6 – Table of Cash option group<br /> <br /> Costs (allowed)<br /> Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost to the complainant <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Forwarded/by Order,<br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent<br />