LIC OF INDIA Vs. ABHOY BANERJEE
LAWS(NCD)-2020-2-27
NCDRC
Decided on February 13,2020

BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
ABHOY BANERJEE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LIFE INSURANCE V. ASHA GOEL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S M Kantikar, j. - (1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short "State Commission") whereby the appeal was allowed and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata (for short "the District Forum") was set aisde.
(2.) Brief facts relevant for disposal of the case are that the complainant had taken a life insurance policy named 'Jeevan Saral' which was effective from 28.04.2005 from the OP. The complainant had paid an annual premium of Rs. 14,412/- for 11 years. Later, vide letter 28.11.2015, the OP informed the complainant that the maturity sum assured was incorrectly typed as Rs. 3,00,000/- instead of Rs. 59,064/- due to typographical error. The OP asked the complainant to provide all the documents so that the corrected maturity sum assured could be provided to the complainant. To this, the complainant protested for getting the sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/-. But the OP did not heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.
(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP by filing a written version. It was contended that for availing 'Jeevan Saral' plan, the policy holder has to decide the yearly premium. Once, it is chosen, the sum assured is automatically determined. This policy had unique feature having different sum assured and the maturity sum assured. The death sum assured was Rs. 3,00,000/- (250 times of monthly premium) and the maturity sum assured was Rs. 59,064/- together with loyalty addition payable after the date of maturity of the policy. The LIC OP informed the complainant that there was an inadvertent typographical error in maturity sum assured which had been shown as Rs. 3,00,000/- instead of Rs. 59,064/-. The complainant filled the proposal form mentioning the death sum assured as Rs.3,00,000/- without any specific mention about maturity sum assured. The discharge voucher was rightly given of Rs. 59,064/- with loyalty addition of Rs. 22,149/- as per policy condition. For corresponding age of 58 years and the term of 11 years, the policy holder had to pay a yearly premium of Rs. 73,140/-. But the complainant paid only Rs. 14,412/- as yearly premium. So, maturity sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/- of the complainant does not stand at all.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.