West Bengal

Bankura

RA/1/2022

Branch Manager, Bankura Branch, LIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANKURA

Review Application No.01/2022 arising out of

Consumer  Complaint  No. 70/2016

Date of Filing : 07.12.2022

Before:                                                                                                             

1. Samiran Dutta                Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee               Ld. Member. 

3.  Sudhakar Ghosh             Ld. Member.

 

For the Petitioners  :Advocate Asim Kumar Mondal 

For the Respondent: Self

Petitioners: 

1.Branch Manager, Bankura Branch, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Acharya J.C. Vidyanidhi Road, Natunchati, P.O. , P.S. & District . Bankura

2.Asansol Divisional Office, LIC Building, Asansol, W.B.

3.Sri Sunil Kumar Shit, Agent of LICI, Village & P.O.Jagdalla, Dist. Bankura

 

Respondent    

Sri Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee, S/o Late Gour Kishore Chatterjee, Village-Rasunkur, P.O.Jagdalla, District- Bankura-722 146

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

Order No.03                                                                             

Dt. 14-12-2022

The record is taken up for delivery of judgement.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement dated: 01-12-2022 passed Ex-parte the Petitioners/O.P. has preferred the instant Review Application under Section 40 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 firstly on the ground that the judgement has been passed Ex-parte with the observation that no W.V. has been filed on behalf of the O.P. although W.V. has been filed by the O.P. which is on record and secondly without taking into consideration the actual details of the Policy in question the Commission has  jumped to the conclusion in the impugned judgement. Both the points of challenge are canvassed as the error apparent on the face of the record which is a ground for entertaining a Review Application.

                                                                                                                                                                            Contd…..p/2

 

Page: 2

Before examining the case in detail it is to be ascertained in a Review Application whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record. It is no doubt true that W.V. filed on behalf of the O.P. is on record but the Commission through an inadvertence could not go through the W.V. at the time of delivery of the impugned judgement. The Commission thinks that this is an error on the face of the record and on this ground the Review Application is maintainable. Thus the Commission proceeds to decide the fate of Review Application.

The facts of the case is that Respondent/Complainant purchases an LIC policy no. being 466100489 Jeevan Saral (with Profits) with date of Commencement 14-06-2005 and date of Maturity 14-06-2016 under Table 165 on Half yearly payment of premium of Rs.2,426/- and paid all the premiums due under the  said policy amounting to Rs.53,372/-. The complainant / Respondent was allured to the said policy as the Maturity Sum Assured was Rs.1 Lac which was duly printed on the policy documents and in the terms and conditions thereof but to his utter surprise he received a letter dt.16-12-2015 from the O.P. authority just before six months of maturity intimating him that due to an inadvertent typographical error the maturity sum assured is Rs.34,612\- and accordingly the Respondent/Complainant after the maturity period could not but accept the said amount with bonus amounting to Rs.45,861/- by signing the Discharge voucher on 29-04-2016. Thereafter the Respondent/Complainant has moved this District Commission demanding the total maturity value of Rs.1 Lac with compensation of Rs.1 Lac.

Petitioner/O.P./LIC authority contested the case by filing a joint written statement denying the claim of the Respondent/Complainant contending inter alia that policy holder is not entitled to get Rs. 1 Lac as the maturity value as it is the offer of death maturity value calculated 250 times of monthly premium of Rs.400/- wrongly printed in the policy document as maturity sum assured. According to the LIC authority maturity  sum assured in case of the policy of the Respondent/Complainant is Rs.34,612/- calculated as 4 times of MSA value of Rs.8,653/- at the age 52 years and policy term 11 years for monthly premium of Rs.100/- which will come to Rs.45,861/- after addition of bonus / loyalty addition of Rs.11,249/-

There is nothing wrong in disbursing the claim of the Respondent/Complainant and whatever typographical error was there in the existing policy document it was duly rectified by issuing letter dated:16-12-2015 to the policy holder.

In support of the contention of the LIC authority Ld. Advocate for the petitioners has produced at the time of hearing the Brochure of the policy in question along with other relevant documents and one decision dated: 23-02-2016 passed by DCDRC, Calcutta Unit-II in C.C.No.457/2015 and an order of Hon’ble High Court dated: 07-11-2017 passed in W.P. No.25250 of 2017.

                                                                                                                                                                            Contd…..p/3

Page: 3

The Respondent/Complainant appeared in person and justified his claim as directed in the impugned judgement.

In this Review Application the Commission has to ascertain whether in passing the impugned judgement the Commission has committed any error of law and fact in settling the claim of the Respondent/Complainant.

Ld Advocate appearing for the LIC authority tried to impress upon the Commission that the policy holder can not get the claim more than he is entitled to and typographical error if any in the policy document is rectifiable without changing the terms and condition of the policy.

The funny thing in this case is that the complainant has paid Rs.53,372/- in all towards premiums of the policy but he has received only Rs.45,861/- which is far less than the Maturity sum assured of Rs.1 Lac but the fact is that if we closely examine the policy document it will be clearly seen that Maturity sum assured has been printed as 1 Lac in the column of Maturity sum assured keeping blank the column of death benefit sum assured with further terms and conditions in the policy document which reads as follows:

“In the event of the Life Assured surviving the date of maturity a sum equal to Maturity Sum Assured in force after partial surrenders, if any, along with the corresponding loyalty addition if any, shall be payable.”

Moreover in the Renewal premium receipt issued on 03-01-2016 the sum assured is still shown as Rs.1 Lac in spite of rectification letter dated: 16-12-2015. Can it be called a typographical error or a lame excuse?

Insurance Policy is a bilateral contract and at the time of commencement of policy terms and conditions are set out to regulate the policy and the policy holder gets the claim after maturity according to the maturity value. Neither party can add or alter the terms and conditions of the policy during the policy period. This is what is exactly provided in Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

The essential ingredient of a contract is consensus-ad-idem i.e. both parties agreeing to the same thing in the same sense while entering into a contract. But in this case what investor thought of getting return from the aforesaid policy is not visualized by the LIC authority. These lapses on the part of the LIC authority cannot be filled up by setting up the theory of typographical error. The LIC Authority has committed latent error while issuing such policy which is not identifiable by any existing facts and circumstances. Under the law of contract the party has to compensate for any loss and damage due to such latent error.

                                                                                                                                                                            Contd…..p/4

Page: 4

As mentioned above death assured value is fixed depending on the premium value only. Maturity sum assured is also fixed which depends on the age of entry and the period of policy. But surprisingly enough the policy document gets the matured assured value printed only keeping the death assured value blank. To a man of common prudence it is natural that the investor will go through the policy document in black and white without inquiring into the details of policy. Policy document is the face of the investment and the terms and conditions thereof contained in the prospectus are part and parcel of the policy document. But in this case neither the Table 165 nor the clear terms and conditions were made over to the policy holder at the time of commencement of the policy. It is only when the policy was to mature the LIC authority introduced the theory of inadvertent error by sending a letter dated: 16-12-2015 giving the Respondent/Complainant the Maturity sum assured as Rs.34,612/-. No communication was made to the policy holder in this regard at any earlier point of time. It is no doubt true that the instant policy covers life risk only but it does not also ignore the maturity value to such extent that the policy holder gets a negative return of his investment.

Considering this aspect of the case Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in a similar case by its decision dated:02-03-2020 in LIC of India Vs.Parvati Bai in R.P. No.2282/18 relying on the decision of the Apex court reported in (2004) 8 SCC 644 has allowed the policy holder case holding at Para-9  of the decision that contract conditions of the policy cannot be changed or interpreted differently by any form and therefore the alleged typographical error cannot be accepted for changing the same after 10 years of the initially created contract i.e. after expiry of the contract period.

The policy in question became so controversial all over the country that a public interest litigation (PIL) No. being W.P. (Civil) 435/2019 was filed by an N.G.O. Money Life Foundatioin against the LIC Authority but the Apex Court by order dated: 15-07-2019 did not entertain it, however, directing the parties to avail other remedies in law. The citatioin is made in this order only to give emphasis on the gravity of the issue.

                                                                                                                                                                                   Contd…..p/5

Page: 5

On perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case the Commission thinks that the LIC authority has used the theory of typographical error as a shield to defeat the claim of the investor. The decision at the district level as cited by the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. is not binding on this Commission and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court as referred to above justifies the claim of the Respondent/Complainant.

 

                                                                                     Hence it is ordered…..

That the Review Application is dismissed on contest without cost.

The judgement dated: 01-12-2022 passed by this Commission in C.C. No.70/2016 is affirmed.

The petitioners are directed to comply the impugned Judgement dated: 01-12-2022 within the stipulated period failing which the same may be executed in accordance with law.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.

Similar copy of this Judgement be sent to the Chief Executive Officer, LIC of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 for information and guidance.

 

                            __________________                                     ________________                                 ________________

                            HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                           HON’BLE    MEMBER                      HON’BLE    MEMBER