Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/300

Rita Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Gupta Adv.

31 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 300 dated 19.06.2019                                                         Date of decision: 31.05.2022

 

Rita Gupta aged 64 years wife of Shri Vinod Gupta, resident of House No.50-51, Club Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

•  

Life Insurance Corporation of India, C.P.O. Road (Bhadaur House), Ludhiana-141008, through its Branch Manager. 

                                                                                      …..Opposite party

 

          Complaint under section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Munish Gupta, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Rajeev Abhi, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he availed Jeevan Suraksha (Endowment Funding) policy with guaranteed additions vide policy No.161181968 for Table No.122-E, Term 19-19 with an amount of monthly (annuity) of Rs.8618/- for annual premium of Rs.9821/-. The date of proposal of the policy was 31.03.2000 and at that time, the complainant was aged about 44 years. The date of last payment of premium was 28.03.2018 and the date on which the annuity vests was 28.03.2019. The first pension installment was to be paid from 28.04.2019. The complainant continuously paid yearly premiums and ultimately received letter dated 12.02.2019 whereby the complainant was given pension options under the above said policies on the date of vesting. As advised by the officials of the OP, the complainant accepted the F option yearly for Rs.59,322/-. The complainant further submitted the option 2 that she exercised the option to receive full pension as per selected pension option without commutation of notional cash option. The complainant again received a letter dated 26.03.2019 from the OP whereby the same application was given exercising the pension option available under the policy on the date of vesting. The complainant was surprised to see the option F which was only for Rs.51,420/-. The complainant had already chosen the option F without commutation option for total yearly amount of Rs.59,322/- whereas in the correspondence of the OP at one time the figure of Rs.5,38,000/- was shown and sometimes it was shown as Rs.5,42,000/- and then Rs.4,60,750/-. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 22.04.2019 calling upon the OP to grant pension/annuity of Rs.8618/- per month as mentioned in the policy No.161181968 but to no avail. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OP be directed to grant amount of monthly annuity of Rs.8618/- per month as mentioned in the policy No.161181968 dated 28.03.2000 in the name of the complainant and further, the OP be made to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/- to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OP, the complainant had obtained the policy No.161181968 with guaranteed additions with Table No.122-E. The date of commencement of the policy was 28.03.2000 and the sum assured was Rs.1,90,000/- with payment of annual premium of Rs.9891/-. There was guaranteed additions @Rs.75/- per thousand per annum amounting to Rs.4,60,750/-(NCO). The policy was fully paid. The IPP option intimation was sent to the complainant without prejudice as to the other annuitants vide letter dated 12.02.2019. However, the letter dated 12.02.2019 was showing the wrong gross NCO of Rs.5,31,562/- due to incorrect data of life cover option ‘Y’ in place of endowment type ‘E’ in the policy master which was actually opted by the complainant at the time of inception of the policy. The OP vide its letter dated 26.03.2019 sent the revised IPP option intimation to the complainant without prejudice after taking corrective actions in the policy master as the previous IPP option intimation was having the wrong values. The latest IPP option intimation sent vide letter dated 26.03.2019 was having gross NCO as Rs.4,60,750/- which was correct in all respects. The gross NCO is Rs.4,60,750/- and not Rs.5,31,562/-. Therefore, the yearly annuity is to be calculated on the basis of Rs.4,60,750/- as per option ‘F’ exercised by the complainant. The rectification of the IPP case has been processed on 26.03.2019 as per option selected by the complainant. The gross NCO of Rs.4,60,750/- has been derived from sum assured of Rs.1,90,000/- plus GMA of Rs.2,70,750/- @75/- per 1000 sum assured as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The annuity installment of Rs.51,420/- was payable on 28.03.2000. The OP received the legal notice under the policy in question on 25.04.2019 which was replied to by the OP on 09.05.2019 stating the true and correct facts. The amount of monthly (annuity) of Rs.8618/- is mentioned on the policy bond which should be as per option ‘D’ but this figures differs from the pension shown in IPP option intimation as the complainant had opted for option ‘F’ now. The mistake has occurred due to incorrect data of life cover as ‘Y’ in place of Endowment Type E policy obtained by the complainant in the policy master in the computer. Thus there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP nor the OP has adopted any unfair trade practice. The bonafide mistake is not to be equated with deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, complainant submitted her affidavit Ex.CA and that of her husband Mr.Vinod Gupta as Ex.CB along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, OP submitted affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.K.K.Arora, Manager, Legal & HPF of OP along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard arguments advanced by the counsel the parties and have also gone through records. 

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has contended that as per the policy Ex. C1, the amount of monthly annuity is Rs.8618/- whereas the OP is offering only an amount of Rs.51,420/- p.a. as stated in Ex. R9. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has argued that the figure of Rs.8618/-  in the policy was the result of a mistake in the computer system. It has also been contended by the counsel for the OP that on the basis of the printing error, the complainant cannot get unduly enriched. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the OP has relied upon III (2013) CPJ 660 (NC) in Amarendra Kumar Roy Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and others whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that merely because LIC committed mistake by printing Rs.3366/- as amount payable per month on policy, does not entitle complainant to get the best under both options D and F. It has been further held that the complainant can only be eligible either to get pension under option D or benefit of return of capital  under option F.

8.                We have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties.

9.                It has also been pointed out by the counsel for the OP that as per Ex.R1, the complainant had chosen the pension option ‘F’ i.e. annuity for life with return of purchase price on death. In the Ex.R1 itself, the complainant further chose the option for mode of payment as yearly. The grievance of the complainant is that in the correspondence of the OP, sometimes figures of Rs.5,38,000/- or Rs.5,42,000/- has been shown which was later on reduced to Rs.4,60,750/-. In this regard, counsel for the OP has pointed out that in the policy Ex.R6 though table No.122-E is mentioned. The counsel for the OP has further pointed out that due to mistake in the computer system, all the calculations were made as per option ‘Y’ which was never exercised by the complainant and the amount of Rs.59,322/- was wrongly shown whereas as per the correct option as given in Ex.R9, the yearly payable amount was Rs.51,420/-. In response to the notice Ex.R10, the OP sent reply Ex.R11 whereby it was also clarified that IPP option intimation sent to the complainant was having the wrong value due to incorrect data of life cover option as ‘Y’ in place of Endowment type ‘E’ which was actually opted by the complainant at the time of inception of the policy. It is further clarified in the reply Ex.R12 that later on, a revised IPP option intimation was sent to the complainant after taking corrective action in the policy master and in response thereto, the complainant submitted the option mandate form with the option ‘F’ out of the available options with mode of annuity payment as yearly. Accordingly, the rectification of the IPP case was processed and carried out on 26.03.2019. The gross NCO of Rs.4,60,750/- was derived from the NCO of Rs.1,90,000/- plus GMA Rs.2,70,750/- @75/- per 1000 NCO as per terms and conditions of the policy. Thus the annuity installment of Rs.51,420/- was payable as on 28.03.2020. It is further evident from whatever has been mentioned in the reply Ex. R11 that previously IPP option intimation Ex. R4 sent to the complainant was wrongly generated due to incorrect data which was later on rectified. It is well settled that bonafide mistake cannot be equated with deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Since it is evident that the maturity value of the policy was Rs.4,60,750/- and not Rs.5,38,000/- or Rs.5,42,000/- and it can be safely inferred that the amount mentioned in the option letter previously issued was due to a bonafide mistake and not on account of any deficiency of service. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled to monthly annuity of Rs.8618/- as claimed in the complaint.

9.                The whole matter can be looked at from another angle also. As per the policy Ex. C1, the complainant paid premium of Rs.9891/- from 31.03.2000 to 28.03.2018 @ Rs.9891/- per month. In all, the complainant paid Rs.1,87,229/-. If the amount of Rs.8618/- mentioned in the policy Ex. C1 is taken to be correct, it would mean that the complainant would be paid Rs.1,03,416/- every year till his death against a total investment of Rs.1,87,229/- plus return of invested capital on death. Apparently, this kind of return cannot be even imagined. Therefore, it clearly proved that the figure of Rs.8618/- was mistakenly mentioned in the policy. As held in Amarendra Kumar Roy Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (Supra) merely on the basis of a mistake committed by LIC in printing, the complainant cannot get advantage not due to her under the policy nor the complainant can be held to be entitled to a monthly annuity of Rs.8618/- as claimed in the complaint. 

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:31.05.2022.

Gobind Ram

 

 

Rita Gupta    vs. LIC                                   CC/19/300

Present:       Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate for OPs

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:31.05.2022.

Gobind Ram