Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant who availed a ‘Jeevan Saral’ policy from the opposite parties vide policy no.392965381 and the said policy was commenced on November 2004 and it matured on November 2016.  According to him as per the policy certificate issued by the opposite parties the Maturity Sum Assured is Rs.62, 500/-, Death Benefit Sum Assured is Rs.62, 500/-, and Accident Benefit Sum Assured is Rs. 62,500/-.  It is contended that on 18/04/2016 the opposite parties sent a letter to the complainant stating that there is a typographical error happened in the policy certificate i.e., instead of the Maturity Sum Assured as Rs.28,491/- by typographical error the Maturity Sum Assured was printed as 62,500/-.  In order to rectify the said mistake the opposite parties directed the complainant to produce the original certificate to their office at Pathanamthitta.  It is contended that for the last 12 years the complainant is remitting Rs.766/- each on every 3 months to the opposite parties without making any arrears.  It is further contended that the act of the opposite parties for correcting the Maturity Sum Assured seen in the LIC certificate is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties and they are liable to the complainant.  Though the complainant issued notice to LIC office Kottayam (2^nd opposite party) 2^nd opposite party did not respond for it.  Hence this complainant, for getting the Maturity Sum Assured Rs.62, 500/- , compensation, cost etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties for appearance.  The 1^st & 2^nd opposite party appeared and filed a version as follows.  According the opposite parties this complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant is defective for non-jointer of necessary party i.e., ‘LIC of India’ who issued the policy certificate.  It is also contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case since the terms and condition of the contract only allowed adjudication in civil courts.  It is admitted that 1^st opposite party issued a policy bearing registration No. 392965381 under ‘Jeevan Seral’ plan and the deaths assured under the policy is Rs. 62,500/- and the policy commenced on 23/11/2004 and matured on 23/11/2016.  It is contended that while issuing the policy certificate the Maturity Sum Assured was wrongly shown as Rs.62,500/- due to typographical error instead of Rs.28,491/-.  The said mistake was identified by the opposite parties, it is intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 18/04/2016 for rectification.  This letter was issued 7 months prayer to the termination of the policy period.  It is contented that the LIC has no intension to cheat the customers as alleged by the complainant.  The amount payable on maturity is only the Maturity Sum Assured along with loyalty addition.  It is contended that unlike other policy the ‘Jeevan Saral’ policy premium is same for all age but Maturity Sum Assured will be different.  Therefore the total premium paid for the ‘Jeevan Saral’ policy can be more than the Maturity Benefit Sum Assured.  The Maturity Sum Assured as per the terms of the policy and loyalty addition in receipt of the policy is as follows. 

The Calculation of the maturity value of the Policy No.392965381 is as follows:-

Maturity Sum Assured under Policy: Rs. 11173x 2.55   =       Rs.28, 491 (A)

Loyalty Addition for term 12 years:

Per Rs. 1000 maturity Sum Assured:-                                     Rs.350/-

Loyalty Addition for 28,491                                           =        Rs.350x28491

                                                                                                      1000    

                                                                                      =        Rs.9972 (B)

The total amount payable on

Maturity is (A) + (B)                                                       =        Rs.38, 463/-

4. According to the opposite parties the complainant is at right to get Rs.28, 491/- as Maturity Sum Assured+ 9972 as Loyalty addition= 38,463 as the maturity amount.  It is further contended that nobody can be allowed to take benefit out of a bonafide typographical error which will be against the interest of the Life Insurance Corporation and other policy holders.  Therefore this opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.  The opposite parties filed an additional version apart from the version stated earlier.  In the additional version the opposite party pleaded that the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party since the Branch Manager of the 1^st opposite party’s incompetent to represent the LIC of India.  It is further contended that when the opposite party identified the typographical mistake the opposite parties intimated the complainant vide letter dated 18/04/2016 i.e., 7 months prayer to the termination of the policy period to produce the insurance certificate for correcting the typographical mistake.  Again the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to them.      
5. This Forum perused the complaint, version and records before as and raised the following issues for consideration. 

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Through PW1 Ext. A1 to A4 we also marked.  Ext.A1 is the Policy Certificate.  Ext.A2 is the letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party dated on 18/04/2016.  Ext.A3 is the renewal premium receipt dated 29/07/2016.  Ext.A4 is the Maturity benefit intimation dated nil of 2^nd opposite party.  On the other side the manager (L and HPF) of 3^rd opposite party she who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined Ext.B1 to B6.  B1 is the Power of delegation given by LIC of India infavour of Sree Devi.S.Nair dated 13/06/2016.  B2 is the proposal form of the complainant for the Life Insurance Policy.  B3 is the introduction of LIC ‘Jeevan Saral’ –with profits.  B4 is the surrender value calculations print out.  B5 is the bonus chart effective from 01/01/2016.  B6 is a letter issued by the opposite party on 07/05/2016.  After the closure of evidence we heard both sides.  Apart from hearing the learned counsel appearing for opposite parties also filed an argument note in his favour.                  
7. Point No.1:- The 1^st   to 3^rd opposite party seriously contended that this Forum has no Jurisdiction to try this case and this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  When we evaluate the evidence in this case we can see that the complainant he who availed an LIC-policy under the name and style ‘Jeevan Saral Policy’ from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  They are also admitted that the complainant he who availed an insurance policy from them and the complainant remitting the premium to opposite parties without making any default.  Though the opposite parties raised the jurisdiction question and the defect of non-jointer of necessary parties for the proceeding of this case they failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contention.  Therefore we can safely come to a conclusion that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are serve providers of the complainant.  Hence point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.       

8. Point No. 2 and 3:- The complainant she who is examined as PW1 and deposed that she availed a ‘Jeevan Saral Life Insurance Policy’ from the opposite parties and maturity sum assured is Rs.62, 500/-.  In order to establish this fact she produced and marked Ext.A1 the policy certificate.  In the 2^nd Colum  of Ext.A1 the Maturity Sum Assured, Death Benefit Sum Assured and Accident Benefit Sum Assured are shown as 62,500/- respectively.  As per Ext.A1 it also shows that the commencement of the policy is on 23/11/2004 and the maturity date is on 23/11/2016.  The opposite party’s definite case is that the Maturity Sum Assured shown as 62,500/- in Ext.A1 is a typographical mistake and according to them a real Maturity Sum Assured as Rs.28,491/-.  As per Ext. A2 dated 18/04/2016 a letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party in favour of the complainant shows that by knowing the clerical mistake as discussed earlier the 2^nd opposite party issued a notices admitting the typographical mistake and informed the correct  Maturity Sum Assured is Rs.28,497/-.  As per Ext.A2 the opposite parties required the original policy document to enable them to endorse the correction.  Ext.A3 is a renewal premium receipt dated nil for the month of 05/2016.  It shows that the installment premium is Rs.766/- and Sum Assured is Rs.62, 500/-.  As per Ext.A4 the Maturity benefit intimation dated nil of 2^nd opposite party, we can see that the net amount payable as Maturity Sum Assured is Rs.36, 877/-.

9.  As discussed earlier in order to substantiate the contention raised by the opposite parties the opposite parties examined its 3^rd opposite party’s manager (L & HPF) Sree Devi.S.Nair as DW1.  When we peruse DW1’s proof affidavit we can see that DW1 categorically deposed that in Colum No.2 of Ext.A1 certificate the Maturity Sum Assured which is shown as – Rs.62, 500/- is a typographical mistake.  The said mistake happened at the time of typewriting.  She also deposed the difference of Maturity Sum Assured and Death Benefits Sum Assured scheme of the said policy.  DW1 produced and marked Ext.B1 to show that DW1 is authorized to represent the case for and on behalf of the opposite party as the manager (L & HPF) of 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.B2 is the proposal form of the complainant for the Life Insurance Policy in question.  When we examine Ext.B2 it shows that the sum proposed is 62,500/-.  We cannot see any other explanation with regard to the Sum Assured for Maturity – Death Benefit Sum Assured etc.etc.  B2 (a) and B2 (b) are marked to convince that the opposite parties explained the terms and conditions through their agent and all the terms and conditions are fully understood by the complainant.  The complainant has no case to the effect that any agent explained the terms and condition to him at the time of availing the policy.  Ext.B3 is an “introduction of LIC ‘Jeevan Saral’ –with profits” which includes the terms and conditions of the said policy.  When we examine Ext.B3 it is to be understood that this is only a print out and not even the officer of the opposite party attested this print out as a true copy of any original.  Therefore we are not inclined to consider Ext.B3 as a proof infavour of opposite parties.  Ext.B4 and B5 are two print outs produced and marked by DW1.  When we evaluate the evidently value of B4 and B5 we can see that these Exhibit are also not even attested by the officer concerned of the opposite parties. Therefore the evidence of B4 and B5 cannot be treated as evidence in proof in favour of the opposite party.  Ext.B6 is a letter issued by the opposite party on 07/05/2016 in favour of the complainant stating that the Maturity Sum Assured to the complainant is only 38,462/-.  In Ext.B6 the opposite parties stated that ‘this Maturity Sum Assured was wrongly typed on the policy document as Rs.62, 500/- this is a typographical error’.                        

10. The complainant’s learned counsel argued that at the time of the issuance of the Ext.A1 policy certificate the Maturity Sum Assured was clearly mentioned as Rs.62,500/- .  Apart from it the Death Benefit Sum Assured and Accident Benefit Sum Assured are also mentioned as Rs.62, 500/-.  In the 3^rd Colum of Ext.A1 the installment premium for main plan i.e. Maturity Sum Assured, Death Benefit Sum Assured – are mentioned as Rs.776/-.  According to the complainant, on believing the Maturity Sum Assured amount Rs.62, 500/- he jointed this Jeevan Saral scheme of the opposite party’s and remitted the premium without making any default.  It is further argued that the policy commenced on 23/11/2004 as per Ext.A1 policy certificate.  Therefore we can infer that it is issued on the date of commencement itself i.e. 23/11/2004.  If so, the first intimation to the complainant with regard to the typographical error of the Maturity Sum Assured was intimated to the complainant is only on 18/04/2016 as per Ext.A2.  As per Ext.A1 we can see that the date of maturity of Ext.A1 is on 23/11/2016.  So we can understand that the delay of 12 years occurred to inform the typographical mistake to the complainant.  It is the duty of the insurer to inform the typographical error, if it happened, to the concerned with in a reasonable time.  Nobody can say that the act of the opposite party with regard to the delayed intimation is justifiable.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that the opposite parties are enjoying all the right to rectify the mistake happened by a typographical mistake and also argued that the maturity value and Death Benefit are deciding on the basis of the premium remitted by an insurer and the age of a person is also a main criteria for deciding the Maturity Benefit amount and Death Benefit clam amount.  It is also argued that the said ‘Jeevan Saral Policy’ introduced by the LIC to cover high Death Benefit’s at low premium irrespective of the age of the  insured and the sum payable at the time of Maturity always different on the basis of the age.  Considering the argument put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and opposite parties it is clear that the question to be considered is whether in Ext.A1 policy any typographical error happened at the time of issuing Ext.A1 policy.  If so, whether opposite parties have any right to correct the typographical error in a later stage.  In order to substantiate the contention of opposite parties the opposite parties counsel placed certain decision with regard to the typographical error in the policy certificate and its correction by the insurer.  As per the decision in revision petition No. 2802/2011 of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in LIC  Vs. Anil Kumar Jain the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission observed that ‘in the light of the aforesaid citations it becomes clear that typographical mistakes can be rectified as and when they are noticed and OP has not committed any error in asking complainant to make payment of premium to continue old term plan, particularly when complainant’s father, who was employee of petitioner must be aware that premium shown in term table 79-30 is not correct, and on refusal by the complainant, OP has not committed any error in revising term plan’.  When  we examine this discussion it is clear that the decision says the right of correction of the typographical error and for making payment of premium to continue old term plan particularly the insured’s father who was an employee of the LIC who is expected to know the term table etc.  Therefore the said decision is not applicable or binding with regard to the subject matter of this case.  The opposite parties learned counsel placed another decision in revision petition No.414/2013 of our Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.  In that decision the court observed.  ‘Therefore, the figure of maturity value as Rs.11, 423/- mentioned in the letter dated 18/07/2006 obviously is the result of clerical error, benefit of which cannot be claimed by the complainant.  Thus, in our considered view the impugned orders cannot be faulted’.  When we go through the above said order in pursuance of the said order it is seen that the insured taken a Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.20, 000/- on 02/08/1986 and it is seen that the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission allowed the LIC to correct the clerical error happened in a letter to the insured on 18/07/2006 showing the maturity value as Rs.11, 423/-.  This decision is not related to any correction related to the LIC certificate issued at the time of availing policy.  Therefore there is no need to rely this decision for arriving a conclusion.  We find that the inordinate delay caused on the part of the opposite party with regard to the knowledge of typographical error is not at all justifiable.  As far as this case is concerned for the last 12 years the complainant was an impression of getting Rs.62, 500/- as the Maturity Sum Assured from Ext.A1 policy.  The intimation of the production of relevant records for necessary correction after 12 years, i.e., maturity year, is any way caused mental agony to the complainant.  The opposite party has committed deficiency in service or latches on noticing the alleged typographical error for 12 years.  Therefore we find that the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 62,500/- to the complainant as the Maturity Sum Assured in EXT.A1 policy.  Considering the nature and circumstance of the case and the argument put forward by the learned counsel of the opposite parties we do admit that the complainant has no right to get a huge compensation as claimed by the complainant because the opposite party informed the typographical error prayer to the date of maturity of the policy to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant is allowed in part and point No. 2 & 3 found accordingly.

          11.  In the results, we pass the following orders. 

 (1).The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a Maturity Sum    Assured Rs. 62,500/-(Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant within one month of receipt of the order. If fails, the opposite parties are directed to pay an interest of 10% to the complainant for the said amount from the date of filing of this case onwards i.e., 04-11-2016.

  (2).The opposite parties is also directed to pay a cost of Rs.         3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards. 

   (3).No order for compensation.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th   day of November, 2017.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1: Rosamma.C.S.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1: Policy Certificate.

A2: Letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party dated on 18/04/2016.

A3: Renewal premium receipt dated on 29/07/2016.

A4: Maturity benefit intimation dated nil of 2^nd opposite party

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1: Sreedevi.S. Nair

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1: Power of delegation given by LIC of India infavour of Sree Devi.S.Nair

       dated 13/06/2016.  

B2: Proposal form of the complainant for the Life Insurance Policy.

B3: Introduction of LIC ‘Jeevan Saral’ –with profits dated on 12/02/2004. 

B4: Surrender value calculations print out.

B5: Bonus chart effective from 01/01/2016.

B6: Letter issued by the opposite party on 07/05/2016. 

                                                                                                 (By Order)

 Copy to:-  (1) Rosamma.C.S, Poyyanil, Naranganam.P.O., Kozhenchery. 

                 (2) Branch Manager,L.I.C. of India,P.B.No.24, Pathanamthitta,

        (3)Divisional Manager,L.I.C of India, P.B.No.609, Nagampadom,  Kottayam.

(4) The Stock File.