Order No.  11  dt.  22/10/2019

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased 3 policies on different dates viz. LIC’s Jeevan Saral through their agent and o.p. issued policy certificates wherein it was mentioned that being policy no.418649770 date of commencement 28.3.05 Under Table & Term 165-13(13, sum assured Rs.1 lakh for the yearly premium of Rs.4804/-  for 13 years and maturity sum assured Rs.1 lakh and the date of maturity 28.3.18;  policy no.419956086, date of commencement 28.4.07 Under Table & Term 165-11(11), sum assured Rs.5 lakhs for the yearly premium of Rs.24,020/- for 11 years and maturity sum assured Rs.5 lakhs and the date of maturity 28.4.18 and the policy no.41863201, date of commencement 23.9.05 Under Table & Term 165-13(13), sum assured Rs.1 lakh for the yearly premium of Rs.4804/- for the period of 11 years and the maturity sum assured Rs.1 lakhs and the date of maturity 23.9.18 respectively. The complainant paid all the premiums of the aforesaid policies. The complainant subsequently after the maturity received a registered letter vides Ref. No.577 / CLAIMS / MATURITY BENEFIT dt.13.12.17, 41T / CLAIMS / MATURITY BENEFIT dt. 4.1.18 and 577 / CLAIMS / MATURITY BENEFIT dt. 2.6.18 whereby it was informed that o.p. agreed to pay the gross amount of Rs.33,622/- and amount of Rs.1,14,521/- and amount of Rs.33,622/- being gross amount payable. After receiving such letter the complainant also came to learn that due to inadvertent typographical error in the assured sum the correct sum assured would be Rs.24,016/- and the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said policy. On the basis of the said fact the complainant lodged a complaint to o.p. whereby he raised his plea that he purchased a policy sum assured of Rs.5 lakhs from o.p. on 28.4.07 along with loyalty addition, if any, against the yearly premium of Rs.24,020/- for 11 years and the complainant had paid all premiums @ Rs.24,020/- in total of Rs.2,64,220/- and o.p. has never mentioned that maturity sum assured of Rs.1,14,521/- and the complainant accordingly did not accept the said maturity amount and demanded the sum assured as mentioned in the policy document. Since no action was taken on the part of o.p. then the complainant had no other alternative but to file this case praying for direction upon the o.p. to refund of the assured sum assured of Rs.1 lakh each of 2 policies and Rs.5 lakhs for another policy and also prayed for interest as well as compensation and litigation cost.

                The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant took 3 LIC’s Jeevan Saral Policies Plan No.165, policy no.418653201, maturity SA Rs.24,016/- death SA Rs.1 lakh and accident benefit SA Rs.1 lakh and date of commencement 30.9.05, date of maturity 23.9.18, mode of payment yearly and amount of premium was Rs.4804/-. In respect of 2^nd policy being no.418649770 in the column of maturity sum assured there is xxxx and death benefit SA Rs.1 lakh and accident benefit SA Rs.1 lakh, date of commencement 28.3.05 and date of maturity 28.3.18, mode of payment yearly, amount of premium Rs.4804/-. So far as the 3^rd policy is concerned, in the policy document the maturity SA remained blank and death SA Rs.5 lakhs and accident benefit SA Rs.5 lakhs. date of commencement of the policy 28.4.07 and the maturity date was mentioned 28.4.18, yearly premium Rs.24,020/-. In case of policy no.418653201 maturity sum assured written as Rs.24,016/- which is correct figure, in place of term rider sum assured nothing was written and the area remained blank in respect of policy no.418649770 in place of maturity SA xxxx was written. This means sum assured was not written, other figure written remained correct. So far as the policy no.419956086 is concerned the area of maturity sum assured and the area of term rider sum assured remained blank. From the above figure it is clear that only in respect of the policy no.419956086 inadvertently due to typographical error the area kept blank and nothing was written, so it cannot be presumed that the maturity sum assured of the policy was of Rs.5 lakhs. It is stated under Jeevan Saral Plan that the policy holder has to 1^st decide the amount of premium he wants to pay per year. Once the premium is chosen, the sum assured payable on death dates automatically determined. The death benefit sum is always 250 times of the monthly premium. Basically this policy is intended to provide high / maximum death benefit on the death of the life assured during the term of the policy. The death benefit sum assured as chosen by the complainant in respect of the policy nos.418653201 and 418649770 was Rs.1 lakh (250 times of the monthly premium paid i.e. Rs.250 x 400). The yearly premium in respect of those two policies are arrived at Rs.400 x 12 = Rs.4800/-. But in respect of the policy no.419956086 the death benefit sum assured as chosen by the complainant is Rs.5 lakhs ( 250 times of the monthly premium paid i.e. Rs.250 x 2000). The yearly premium in respect of the policy is arrived at Rs.2000 x 12 = Rs.24,000/-. The terms and conditions of the said policy has been mentioned in the policy document itself. Since in this case after the maturity period the complainant claimed the said amount and as per the terms and conditions of the policy calculation was made after the date of maturity and o.p. rightly sent the discharge voucher for the maturity sum assured of Rs.33,622/- in respect two policies and in respect of 3^rd policy Rs.1,14,521/- together with loyalty addition in respect of those policies to the complainant.

                The complainant was well aware of the fact about two different sum assured payable on happening of the contingencies and nowhere in the said two policy bonds maturity sum arrived was written as Rs.1 lakh as claimed by the complainant. Similarly in respect of policy no.419956086 the place of maturity sum assured has been kept blank due to typographical error. But in the said policy bond nowhere it was mentioned that the maturity sum assured of the policy was of Rs.5 lakhs. Since the claim made by the complainant based on some typographical mistake committed by o.p. in the policy document, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant will be entitled to get the said amount as claimed by the complainant. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above, o.p. claimed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

                On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant had the policies with o.p.?
2. Whether after the maturity period the complainant will be entitled to get the sum assured or the amount mentioned by o.p.?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

                Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased 3 policies on different dates viz. LIC’s Jeevan Saral through their agent and o.p. issued policy certificates wherein it was mentioned that being policy no.418649770 date of commencement 28.3.05 Under Table & Term 165-13(13, sum assured Rs.1 lakh for the yearly premium of Rs.4804/-  for 13 years and maturity sum assured Rs.1 lakh and the date of maturity 28.3.18;  policy no.419956086, date of commencement 28.4.07 Under Table & Term 165-11(11), sum assured Rs.5 lakhs for the yearly premium of Rs.24,020/- for 11 years and maturity sum assured Rs.5 lakhs and the date of maturity 28.4.18 and the policy no.41863201, date of commencement 23.9.05 Under Table & Term 165-13(13), sum assured Rs.1 lakh for the yearly premium of Rs.4804/- for the period of 11 years and the maturity sum assured Rs.1 lakhs and the date of maturity 23.9.18 respectively. The complainant paid all the premiums of the aforesaid policies. The complainant subsequently after the maturity received a registered letter vides Ref. No.577 / CLAIMS / MATURITY BENEFIT dt.13.12.17, 41T / CLAIMS / MATURITY BENEFIT dt. 4.1.18 and 577 / CLAIMS / MATURITY BENEFIT dt. 2.6.18 whereby it was informed that o.p. agreed to pay the gross amount of Rs.33,622/- and amount of Rs.1,14,521/- and amount of Rs.33,622/- being gross amount payable. After receiving such letter the complainant also came to learn that due to inadvertent typographical error in the assured sum the correct sum assured would be Rs.24,016/- and the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said policy. On the basis of the said fact the complainant lodged a complaint to o.p. whereby he raised his plea that he purchased a policy sum assured of Rs.5 lakhs from o.p. on 28.4.07 along with loyalty addition, if any, against the yearly premium of Rs.24,020/- for 11 years and the complainant had paid all premiums @ Rs.24,020/- in total of Rs.2,64,220/- and o.p. has never mentioned that maturity sum assured of Rs.1,14,521/- and the complainant accordingly did not accept the said maturity amount and demanded the sum assured as mentioned in the policy document. Since no action was taken on the part of o.p. then the complainant had no other alternative but to file this case praying for direction upon the o.p. to refund of the assured sum assured of Rs.1 lakh each of 2 policies and Rs.5 lakhs for another policy and also prayed for interest as well as compensation and litigation cost.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant took 3 LIC’s Jeevan Saral Policies Plan No.165, policy no.418653201, maturity SA Rs.24,016/- death SA Rs.1 lakh and accident benefit SA Rs.1 lakh and date of commencement 30.9.05, date of maturity 23.9.18, mode of payment yearly and amount of premium was Rs.4804/-. In respect of 2^nd policy being no.418649770 in the column of maturity sum assured there is xxxx and death benefit SA Rs.1 lakh and accident benefit SA Rs.1 lakh, date of commencement 28.3.05 and date of maturity 28.3.18, mode of payment yearly, amount of premium Rs.4804/-. So far as the 3^rd policy is concerned, in the policy document the maturity SA remained blank and death SA Rs.5 lakhs and accident benefit SA Rs.5 lakhs. date of commencement of the policy 28.4.07 and the maturity date was mentioned 28.4.18, yearly premium Rs.24,020/-. In case of policy no.418653201 maturity sum assured written as Rs.24,016/- which is correct figure, in place of term rider sum assured nothing was written and the area remained blank in respect of policy no.418649770 in place of maturity SA xxxx was written. This means sum assured was not written, other figure written remained correct. So far as the policy no.419956086 is concerned the area of maturity sum assured and the area of term rider sum assured remained blank. From the above figure it is clear that only in respect of the policy no.419956086 inadvertently due to typographical error the area kept blank and nothing was written, so it cannot be presumed that the maturity sum assured of the policy was of Rs.5 lakhs. It is stated under Jeevan Saral Plan that the policy holder has to 1^st decide the amount of premium he wants to pay per year. Once the premium is chosen, the sum assured payable on death dates automatically determined. The death benefit sum is always 250 times of the monthly premium. Basically this policy is intended to provide high / maximum death benefit on the death of the life assured during the term of the policy. The death benefit sum assured as chosen by the complainant in respect of the policy nos.418653201 and 418649770 was Rs.1 lakh (250 times of the monthly premium paid i.e. Rs.250 x 400). The yearly premium in respect of those two policies are arrived at Rs.400 x 12 = Rs.4800/-. But in respect of the policy no.419956086 the death benefit sum assured as chosen by the complainant is Rs.5 lakhs ( 250 times of the monthly premium paid i.e. Rs.250 x 2000). The yearly premium in respect of the policy is arrived at Rs.2000 x 12 = Rs.24,000/-. The terms and conditions of the said policy has been mentioned in the policy document itself. Since in this case after the maturity period the complainant claimed the said amount and as per the terms and conditions of the policy calculation was made after the date of maturity and o.p. rightly sent the discharge voucher for the maturity sum assured of Rs.33,622/- in respect two policies and in respect of 3^rd policy Rs.1,14,521/- together with loyalty addition in respect of those policies to the complainant. The complainant was well aware of the fact about two different sum assured payable on happening of the contingencies and nowhere in the said two policy bonds maturity sum arrived was written as Rs.1 lakh as claimed by the complainant. Similarly in respect of policy no.419956086 the place of maturity sum assured has been kept blank due to typographical error. But in the said policy bond nowhere it was mentioned that the maturity sum assured of the policy was of Rs.5 lakhs. Since the claim made by the complainant based on some typographical mistake committed by o.p. in the policy document, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant will be entitled to get the said amount as claimed by the complainant. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above, o.p. claimed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased 3 policies from o.p. i.e. LIC’s Jeevan Saral Table 165 and the terms and conditions regarding maturity, death benefit amount, etc. It is found from the policy documents that calculation of the premium structure, calculation of the maturity sum assured on the basis of age entry date etc. and from the said calculation chart sum assured for Rs.100 monthly premium for 13 years premium paying term for age 59 years is Rs.6400/-. So maturity sum assured at the end of the term = monthly premium tab premium for age term / 100 = 400 x 6004 / 100 = Rs.24,016/-. Loyalty addition depends on maturity sum assured and it will be Rs.400 per 1000 of MSA = Rs.400 x 24.016 = Rs.9606/-. So the maturity value = maturity sum assured + loyalty addition i.e. Rs.(24,016 + 9606) i.e. Rs.33,622/-. So far as policy no.419956086 is concerned, maturity sum assured for Rs.100/- monthly premium for 11 years premium paying tem for age 59 years i.e. Rs.3949/-, so the maturity sum assured at the end of the term = monthly premium x tab premium for age and term / 100 = Rs.2000 x 3949 / 100 = Rs.78,980/-. Loyalty addition depends on maturity sum assured and it will be Rs.450 LA per 1000 of MSA =Rs.450 x 78.98 = Rs.35,540/-, so the maturity value will be maturity sum assured + loyalty addition i.e. Rs.(78,980 + 35,541) = Rs.1,14,521/-. The complainant though claimed that he will be entitled to get the sum assured as mentioned in the policy, but as per the terms and conditions of the table o.p. rightly sent the discharge voucher for payment of the said amount which was refused by the complainant to accept the said amount. It appears from the materials on record that in the policy document the amount of Rs.24,016/- was mentioned in the column of maturity SA, but in case of death benefit SA, accident benefit SA i.e. in case of unfortunate event the nominee of the policy holder would have got the said amount. It does not mean that due to inadvertence some typographical mistake was committed the complainant cannot take advantage of the same. in support of the said contention ld. lawyer for o.p. cited a judgment as decided by Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No.2808 of 2011 wherein it was held that as typographical mistake has been noticed in audit objection about 20 years we deem it proper to allow the complainant to make payment of premium, which was les paid by him uptill without interest to continue old term table. On the basis of the said judgment since the error was detected in the policy though the complainant was fully aware regarding the terms and conditions of the policy never raised any objection and never wanted to have the clarification from o.p. regarding the amount to be received by him in case of survival of the policy holder after the  maturity period of the policy, if the premium is paid as per the terms of the policy. On the basis of the evidence on record particularly affidavit in chief of o.p. including LICI’s Jeevan Saral Plan being Table No.165 some typographical mistake was committed for which the insured cannot get the benefit of the sum error as claimed by him. It is crystal clear that due to some mistake the complainant cannot get the advantage; moreover, parties are guided by the agreement and their clause as per Plan No.165. So the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of Jeeval Saral Plan No.165 and as per that agreement the complainant is entitled to get benefit of the amount as o.p. agreed to pay. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that o.p. has not committed any deficiency in service and the complainant must submit the discharge voucher by accepting the amount and on receipt and acceptance of discharge voucher by the complainant, the o.p. shall have to pay total sum of Rs.(33,622 + 33,622 + 1,14,521) = Rs. 1,81,765/- (Rupees one lakh eighty one thousand seven hundred sixty five) only to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of discharge voucher from the complainant. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.02/2019 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.