Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/392

CHIEF MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRAMEELA - Opp.Party(s)

G S KALKURA

31 May 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.392/2014

JUDGMENT DATED  31/5/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.113/2012 dt .25/04/2014 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram)

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Chief Manager, LIC of India, Branch Office,

Kunnamkulam, Lulu Complex, Kottayil Road,

Kunnamkulam-680 503.

 

2. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India,

Divisional Office, Calicut,

Mananchira, Calicut.

(By Adv:   G.S. Kalkura)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENT:

            Prameela.T.N., W/o Sathianarayanan.E.V.,

“Prasanthi”, (P.O) Edappal,

Malappuram-679 576.

(By Adv:  K.N. Justin)  

                

 

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the order passed in C.C.No.113/12 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

          2.  It is the case of the complainant that she joined the scheme Jeevan Suraksha Policy of the opposite party having terminal bonus and life cover.  The complainant was an employee of South Malabar Gramin Bank.  The monthly instalment premium for the scheme is Rs.547/- and the maturity value of the policy is Rs.4,69,684/-.  As per the policy the insured is entitled for Rs.4,580/- as monthly pension from 28/3/2012 onwards.  The complainant joined the scheme as the South Malabar Gramin Bank covered only Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme and would be getting only nominal amount as pension.  On 28/2/1997 the complainant remitted 1^st monthly premium for Rs.547/- and insured herself for the said scheme and the tenure of the policy was 15 years.  The maturity date of the policy is 28/2/2012 and the 1^st monthly pension instalment starts from 28/3/2012.  The policy was issued on 22/4/1997 containing the terms and conditions of the policy.  On 24/2/2012 the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to get the details for crediting the monthly pension amount from 28/3/2012.  It is stated in the complaint that the 1^st opposite party issued a letter dated 14/2/2012 that the maturity value of the policy is  Rs.2,34,846/- and the monthly pension is only Rs.2,033/-.  The complainant was shocked on knowing that she would be getting only very nominal amount of Rs.2,033/-.  She again sent a letter to the opposite party.  In lieu of this the opposite party replied that the monthly pension and cash option were wrongly calculated and the mistake was later rectified and credited at the time of conversion and the monthly pension and cash option were typed in-advertently as Rs.4,580/- instead of Rs.2,033/- so also Rs.4,69,694/- against Rs.2,34,846/-.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the alleged wrong calculation was not informed to her by the opposite parties sufficiently early.  It is also stated in the complaint that the complainant would have cancelled the policy and had chosen other modes of deposits more beneficial to the complainant other than the opposite parties’ scheme.  The opposite parties have no right to do the alleged correction arbitrarily and without giving information to the complainant.  This act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  The complainant joined the insurance scheme with a view to get a monthly income as pension @ Rs.4,580/- after her retirement from the Bank. The complainant suffered mental agony which is to be compensated and claimed Rs. 2 Lakhs and Rs.8,000/- as cost of proceedings from the opposite parties.

          3.  It is stated in the version that “Jeevan Suraksha Policy with Terminal bonus and life cover” was introduced to the employees of the South Malabar Grameen Bank and the monthly instalment premium is Rs.547/-.  The maturity value and the pension amount was denied as the policy condition and the contract differ from what the complainant alleged.  It is admitted that the complainant remitted the monthly premium on 28/2/1997 and the tenure of policy as 15 years and the maturity date was 28/2/2012 in the name of the complainant.  The premium amount was realized by 2^nd opposite party through the 1^st opposite party from monthly salary of the complainant.  The complainant remitted the 1^st two monthly premium of Rs.1,094/- instead of Rs.547/-. While preparing the policy certificate the monthly pension and cash option was in-advertently shown as Rs.4,580/- and Rs.4,69,694/- instead of Rs.2,033/- and Rs.2,34,846/- respectively.  Against monthly premium of Rs.547/- only Rs.2,033/- as monthly pension and notional cash option is Rs.2,34,846/-.  The mistake was observed at a later stage and made necessary correction and this was within the knowledge of the complainant itself.  It is also communicated to the complainant on 20/7/2004 when the policy of the complainant transferred from Tirur LIC Branch to Kunnamkulam LIC Branch.  It was clearly stated in the letters that the sum assured as Rs.1,17,423/- the notional cash option is two times of the sum assured ie. Rs.2,34,846/-.  These aspects were well within the knowledge of the complainant from 2004 itself hence this complaint filed is barred by limitation.  The Jeevan Suraksha Policy is an annuity policy and the mode of benefits payable under the policy is clearly mentioned in the policy document.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is not legally entitled to get any benefit or amount or compensation on the basis of a bonafide clerical mistake crept in at the time of registering the proposal.

          4.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exbts: A1 to A4.  On the part of opposite parties DW1 and DW2 were examined and documents B1 to B4 were marked.  On appreciation of evidence and documents the Forum Below found out that the complainant is entitled for monthly pension of Rs.2,033/-  and the notional amount as Rs.2,34,848/- and also allowed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

          5.  It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in Exbt: A1 policy document an in-advertant mistake crept in on the clerical side.  This mistake cannot be taken as an advantage by the respondent who has entered into a contract with the opposite party.  The respondent is not entitled to get the monthly pension of Rs.4,580/- as claimed or the cash option of Rs.4,69,694/- the respondent remitted Rs.547/- as monthly instalment premium which was remitted through the salary saving scheme.  The respondent is entitled only for Rs.1,17,423/- and cash option is two times which comes to Rs.2,34,846/- from 18/2/2012.   The  tabular   annual

 

 

premium clearly specifies the annuity per month and also the cash option.  The counsel pointed out that the Forum Below even after taking into consideration about Exbt: B2 and B4 directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation is against the provision of law and allowed interest @ 12% also in addition to compensation.  Moreover in the complaint the complainant sought for Rs.8,000/- towards cost of litigation whereas the Forum Below allowed Rs.10,000/- which is un-sustainable as it exceeded the amount prayed for.  The appellant had already informed of the correct amount of Rs.1,17,423/- by letter dated 20/7/2004.  Hence the respondent is well aware of actual amount that would be receiving as maturity value of the policy.  The respondent remitted only Rs.547/- as monthly premium and as per the tabular statement monthly pension receivable after 15 years is only Rs.2,033/- and the maturity amount is only Rs.2,34,846/-.

          6.  Refuting the arguments the counsel for the respondent submitted that the policy issued to the respondent showed that the respondent is entitled to Rs.4,580/- as monthly pension from 28/3/2012 and maturity value of the policy is Rs.4,69,684/-.  The respondent took the Jeevan Sureksha Policy with terminal pension and life cover as a security for the respondent as she was having only employee’s provident fund pension scheme which is a very nominal amount as pension.  In order to secure her life she opted for this policy of the opposite party due to the canvassing by the agent of the opposite party.  The respondent had financial loss and could not join any better schemes other than the Jeevan Suraksha Policy of the opposite party.  The respondent had to suffer mental agony due to the financial loss.  The respondent was not aware of the discrepancy until 2012 and she approached for getting the pension amount after 2012.                 No communication has been sent to the respondent with the corrected policy. Hence the respondent is entitled for the policy amount of Rs.4,69,694/- along with Rs.4,580/- as monthly pension.  It is also urged for compensation for the mental agony and also the cost of litigation as the respondent had to approach the Redressal Forum.

          7.  Heard both counsels in detail and had gone through the records.  It is an undisputed fact that the respondent joined the Jeevan Suraksha Policy with terminal pension life cover, a pension scheme of the 2^nd appellant.  The policy was issued with the writing that the insured would be getting Rs.4,580/- and the maturity value on 28/3/2012 comes to Rs.4,69,684/-.  The monthly premium paid by the respondent is Rs.547/- and as per the table produced as Annexure before the Forum Below as Exbt: B4  clearly shows that those who are paying Rs.547/- is eligible to get the annuity of Rs.2,033/- per month as pension and the maturity amount comes to Rs.1,17,423/- and the maturity value would be two times which comes to Rs.2,34,846/-.  There is no case for the complainant that she had paid any extra premium other than Rs.547/-.  Exbt: B2 produced by the respondent clearly gives the calculation method adopted by the appellant.  Though the respondent denies the communication sent by the appellant regarding the corrected amount the appellants produced Exbt: B3 wherein it is stated that the sum assured is Rs.1,17,423/- and the premium is Rs.547/-.  This letter was issued to the complainant as early as on 20/7/2004 by the Branch Manager while the transfer of the policy took place from Tirur to Kunnamkulam.  So the ignorance or the concealing of the complainant that she is not aware of the actual sum assured cannot go in favour of the respondent.  The respondent cannot take undue benefit for a typing error while issuing the policy.  It is true that a corrected policy was not issued to the complainant.  That does not mean the benefit of typing mistake should be given to the respondent to enrich her despite the fact that beyond the terms and conditions which is specifically given in the policy issued to the complainant.  The respondent is not entitled to get the amount mentioned in the policy as it is an in-advertent mistake.  There is no contractual obligation for the appellant to pay the sum assured when that sum is not payable.  Hence the respondent is entitled for the amount as per the contract between the parties which is Rs. Rs.1,17,423/- and two times the notional amount comes to Rs.2,34,846/-.  We would also like to point out that the Forum Below allowed interest @ 12% to the respondent and also Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. When interest from 28/3/2012 @ 12% was already allowed,  the question of compensation does not arise in this case.  Moreover, we would like to point out that the complainant prayed for only Rs.8,000/-.  Whereas the Forum Below exceeded in allowing cost in its own risk as Rs.10,000/-.  In the instant case the respondent had suppressed the fact that she was not aware of the details of maturity amount even after receiving the communication as early as in 2004 and came up with the demand for an amount  typed mistakenly.  The matter being so, we are inclined to dis-allow the cost.

          In the result, appeal allowed in apart.  The appellant is directed to pay Rs.2,033/- as monthly pension to the complainant from 28/3/2012 onwards or in the alternative pay Rs.2,34,846/- with interest @ 12% pa from 28/2/2012 till the date of realization.

          The order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of this order.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

A. RADHA          :         MEMBER

 

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Sa.

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

     KERALA STATE CONSUMER

      DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.392/2014

JUDGMENT DATED  31/5/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.