KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 06/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 15.10.2018

(Against the order in C.C. 76/2014 of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT : 

SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                                          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RANJIT. R                                                           : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kollannur Devassy Building, Town Hall Road, Thrissur-680 020.

 (By Adv. Anitha Aji)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

          A.  Ramaswamy, IA Achutham Residency, P.O, Pottore, Thrissur-680 581.

JUDGMENT

SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER

The opposite party in C.C. No. 76/2014 of Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Thrissur, in short, the district forum, has filed this appeal against the order passed by the forum by which they were directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, to the complainant.

2.  The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows:  Complainant has taken a policy of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the Chalakkudy branch of the opposite party.  Subsequently the policy was transferred to the branch of Thrissur.  The policy was issued on 24.03.2004 and its date of maturity was on 24.03.2014.  On 02.01.2014 the opposite party informed the complainant to collect the maturity benefit of the policy of Rs. 58,487/- which would payable on 24.03.2014.  On receiving the letter complainant approached the opposite party with the policy and asked them why they sent such a letter asking him to collect a lesser amount than the maturity value, Rs. 1,25,000/-.  Opposite party has taken the stand that they can pay only Rs. 58,487/-.  Complainant had taken the policy of Rs. 1,25,000/- for a period of 10 years with quarterly premium of Rs. 1,531/-.  Altogether he has paid Rs. 61,240/- as premium during these years.  By asking the complainant to collect a lesser amount than the actual premium paid by him, the opposite party committed unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service towards the complainant.  Opposite party filed version raising the following contentions.  It is true that the complainant had taken a policy.  But the statement of the complainant that the maturity sum assured is Rs. 1,25,000/- is not correct.  The sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- shown in the policy as maturity sum assured was actually death sum assured.  It happened only because of a typographical error.  Complainant had taken a Jeevan Saral policy under Table 165 with a term of 10 years and quarterly premium of Rs. 1,531/- including the accident benefit premium of Rs. 31/-.  The sum payable on maturity will be different for each age at entry and term of the policy.  The death sum assured under the policy is fixed at 250 times of the basic monthly premiums payable and thus under the policy it is fixed as Rs. 1,25,000/-.  As per the policy conditions the maturity sum assured payable is only Rs. 8,998/- per every 100 monthly premium for a person aged at 48 years for a term of 10 years.  In the present case the basic monthly premium comes to Rs. 500/- and hence the maturity sum assured is only Rs. 44,990/-.  In the intimation given to the complainant the amount payable was shown as Rs. 58,487/-, including the loyalty addition of Rs. 13,497/-, that is the actual amount to which the complainant is entitled to receive from the opposite party and the opposite party is ready to pay that amount.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  Complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the opposite party.

3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked on his side.  RW1 was examined and Exts. R1 to R5 were marked on the side of opposite party.  After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides, the district forum has passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum, opposite party has preferred the present appeal. 

4.  Heard both sides and perused the records. 

5.  There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant had taken Ext. P1 policy from the opposite party.  According to the complainant the maturity value of the policy is Rs. 1,25,000/-.  Opposite party had sent Ext. P2 letter to the complainant informing him to collect the amount of Rs. 58,487/- as the maturity value of the policy on producing the policy and other documents.  According to the complainant he is entitled to get Rs. 1,25,000/- as the maturity value of the policy and he had sent Ext. P3 letter to the opposite party stating that fact.  But the opposite party has taken a stand that they can pay only Rs. 58,487/- to him.  According to the opposite party the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- shown in Ext. P1 policy as maturity sum assured was actually death sum assured and it happened only because of typographical error.  The maturity sum assured is Rs. 44,990/- and adding Rs. 13,497/-, the loyalty, the actual amount payable is Rs. 58,487/- and that is stated in Ext. P2.  In Ext. P1 the maturity sum assured is shown as Rs. 1,25,000/- and accident benefit sum assured is also shown as Rs. 1,25,000/-.  The death benefit sum amount is shown as ‘Nil’.  It is the case of the opposite party that it is only a typographical error and they have noticed that error/mistake only at the time of maturity of the policy.  The endorsements in Ext. P1 policy would show that the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 23,500/- dated 04.05.2010 and he had availed another loan of Rs. 34,250/- dated 09.10.2012 by pledging Ext. P1 policy.  In these circumstances the case of the opposite party that they came to know about the typographical error in Ext. P1 policy only at the time of its maturity cannot be believed.  Further it is to be noted that in Ext. P2 letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant intimating him about the maturity of the policy, the opposite party has not stated that such a typographical error happened on their part in typing the amounts in Ext. P1.  From Ext. R1 proposal form it can be seen that the sum proposed by the complainant is Rs. 1,25,000/-.  In Ext. P1 it is not stated that the maturity value of the policy will be Rs. 44,990/-.  In these circumstances, it requires strong evidence on the part of the opposite party that in Ext. P1 the maturity sum is stated as Rs. 1,25,000/- because of a typographical error and a typographical error happened on their part while issuing Ext. P1 policy.  As observed by the district forum, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 61,240/- as premium.  Complainant, who is having a number of other policies with the opposite party, is not an ordinary layman.  It is difficult to believe that a person like the complainant has taken a policy by knowing that he will get only a lesser amount as maturity benefit.  The opposite party failed to prove that the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- stated in Ext. P1 policy is actually a typographical error which happened on their part while issuing the policy.  Considering all these facts, the district forum found that the opposite party could not prove that the typographical error happened on their part in the policy issued to the complainant and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant within one month from receiving the copy of the order.  We consider that there is no reason/ground to interfere with the findings and the order passed by the district forum.  The counsel for the appellant cited the decision in United India Insurance Company Vs. Roy (2005(2) KLT 63) in which it was held that nobody could expect an ideal situation without any error or mistake in the matter of administration.  If any mistake has been committed due to any inadvertent omission or otherwise the same can be always corrected and duty is cast not only on the administration but also on the beneficiary of the mistake to correct the error.  The facts of the case discussed in that decision and facts of the present case are entirely different.  In the present case the opposite party failed to prove that a typographical error happened on their part in Ext. P1 policy issued by them to the complainant and the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- shown in Ext. P1 policy as the maturity value is because of a typographical error.  As stated above, in Ext. P2 intimation given by opposite party to complainant the opposite party has no such case.  So the dictum laid down in the above stated decision is not applicable to the present case.  As stated above, there is no ground/reason to interfere with the order passed by the district forum and the appeal is to be dismissed.

6.  In the result, appeal is dismissed.  Parties are directed to suffer their respective cost.     

T.S.P MOOSATH     :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R    : MEMBER  

jb