Haryana

StateCommission

A/1364/2017

LIC OF INDIA AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARINDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

VANDANA MALHOTRA

16 May 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                  First Appeal No.1364 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 13.11.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 16.05.2022

 

1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch office, Near Head Post Officer, Ambala City.
2. The Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional office, Model Town, Karnal.

…..Appellants

Versus

Narinder Kumar Sharma S/o Sh.Tulsi Das R/o H.No.2560/B-12, Shivpuri Colony, Ambala City.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.Sandeep Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of  eight days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.1364 of 2017 has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.09.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.169 of 2014, which was allowed.

3.      The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present appeal are that complainant had obtained LIC Insurance policy on 28.04.2004 from opposite partyNo.1 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with double accident benefit under table and term 165-10 and with yearly mode of payment.  He deposited a premium of Rs.6125/- vide its BOC No.312 dated 28.04.2004.  OP NO.1 accepted the above said proposal and in token thereof issued the LIC policy, but did not supply the copy of proposal form.  The proposal form was obtained by him from OP NO.2 vide his application dated 15.05.2014 under RTI Act 2005.  The policy in question matured for payment on 28.04.2014 after the expiry of term of  the policy of 10 years and last yearly premium under the policy was duly paid on 28.05.2013 and just  six days before the payment of the maturity value of the policy, OP No.1 issued letter dated 22..04.2014 to him denying the payment of the maturity value of the policy i.e. Rs.1,25,000/-.  OP No.1 submitted that maturity sum assured payable under policy would be Rs.54,200/- and not Rs.1,25,000/- which has been wrongly mentioned on policy bond.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that  the policy in question was obtained by him under table and terms 165-10-10  date of commencement of the policy was 28.04.2004 and premium of Rs.6005/- was payable yearly under the policy in question.  Under the policy in question Rs.1,25,000/- was death sum assured payable in the case of death of the life assured prior to the date of maturity and Rs.54200/- was maturity sum assured payable on the date of maturity. The maturity sum assured printed on the policy bond in question of Rs.1,25,000/- was due to printing error made by the system whereas the correct maturity amount was Rs.54200/- and OP No.1 conveyed to the policy holder on 02.06.2014 that Rs. 70,460/- was due for payment under the policy in question as maturity claim which include Rs.16,260/- as loyalty addition and maturity claim pending for want of requirement from the policy holder.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled for the maturity amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. Thus there was no deficiency in service on its part.  Other averments made in the complaint were refuted and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, District
Commission, Ambala allowed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 19.09.2017.  Relevant portion is as under:-

“Reason recorded above and considering the statement of the complainant, the OPs are liable to pay the balance of maturity insured value of Rs.70,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till its realization. Hence, the present complaint is allowed with costs which is assessed at Rs.3000/- and OPs are directed to comply with the following direction within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      to pay Rs.70,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs have preferred this appeal.

7.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.Sandeep Kashyap learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records had been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that insured value of Rs.1,25,000/- was a typographically mistake and as per policy Annexure R-1 i.e. formula of maturity amount, which is  applicable in the policy. The complainant is not entitled for the policy amount as prayed for. A reliance has been placed upon the celebrated authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled HP State Forest Company Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. 1 (2009) CPJ 1 (SC),  opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled LIC and Ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Jain  II (2013) CPJ 83 (NC) and Amarendra Kumar Roy Vs. LIC of India and Ors Law Finder Doc id#537044.

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent vehemently argued that he is entitled to get  the full maturity amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as per the policy bond Annexure C-1.

10.    As far as the issuance of the insurance policy is concerned, there is no dispute.  Since the proposal form Annexure C-1 shows that maturity amount was Rs.1,25,000/-, the OPs-appellants cannot  back out  from the terms and conditions of the policy.  Even for arguments sake if there was any printing error in the contents of the policy issued to complainant, then whey the appellant corporation did not make any effort to carry out any amendment in the same till its maturity. The complainant is entitled for the full maturity amount i.e. Rs.1,25,000/-. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant received an amount of Rs.54,200/-. Since the maturity amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, the complainant received an amount of Rs.54,200/-.  An amount of Rs.1,25,000/- minus Rs.54200/-=70,800/- is pending with the OPs.  The OPs are entitled to pay the balance amount of Rs.70,800/-  alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. as rightly awarded by the learned District Commission.  The case laws relied upon by the counsel for the appellants are not applicable because the facts and circumstances of the case are different from the present case. The findings of the learned District Commission is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Hence, this appeal is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

16th  May, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)