Advantage Consumer

LIC’s Petition for relief dismissed at admission stage itself, for claiming inherent typographical error in the sum assured of the Policy

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2282 OF 2018
(Against the Order dated 23/03/2018 in Appeal No. 621/2015 of the State Commission Maharashtra)

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.
BRANCH MANAGER, JEEVAN JYOTI BUILDING COMPLEX AREA, BRANCH OFFICE,
GADCHIROLI. MAHARASHTRA    ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
PARVATI BAI & ANR.
MAHADEV MOGRE, R/O. TUKUM WARD,
DESAI GANJ, TEHSIL DESAI GANJ,
DISTRICT-GADCHIROLI.
MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
    HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

Dated : 02 Mar 2020

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India and another against the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. A/15/621.

2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent complainant had taken LIC Jeevan Saral Policy bearing no. 974528842 from the petitioner/ opposite parties. The maturity sum assured under the policy was for Rs.2,67,295/-,. Policy period was from 14.12.2004 to 14.12.2014. Complainant has paid Rs.1,225/- as premium amount quarterly till 14.09.2014, in total deposited Rs.49,000/-. Complainant by voucher dated 06.12.2014 received only Rs.38,970/- against the maturity sum assured of Rs.2,67,295/-. Complainant demanded the certified copy of total documents on 06.01.2015 as per Maharashtra right to Information Act 2005, but opposite party no. 1 has given copy of page no. 1 to 4 instead of total document’s certified copies to the complainant. . The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which was partly accepted with costs of Rs.2,500/- vide its order dated 24.09.2015 and the opposite parties were directed to pay the remaining maturity amount of Rs.2,28,325/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners/opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 23.03.2018.

3.      Hence, this revision petition.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record. Counsel for the petitioner stated that there is typographical error in the policy, however, both the lower fora have not considered this apparent typing error on the face of record. The learned counsel explained that the amount of Rs.2,67,295/- has been wrongly mentioned against the maturity amount, whereas this amount should have been mentioned as Rs.38,970/-. Learned counsel submitted that if the arithmetic calculations and terms and condition of the policy are taken together, it would be clear that a total amount of Rs.49,000/- would be created by way of depositing the premium @ Rs.1225/- per quarter and even if one does not consider the insurance component within this amount, it is not possible to generate a capital of Rs.2,67,295/-. Thus, clearly, mention of Rs.2,67,295/- against the maturity amount is not logical by any standards. It was further argued that the death benefit mentioned in the policy is for Rs.1,00,000/- only valid for 10 years. This is not possible that the maturity amount would be greater than the death benefit. It has been stated that when the high risk policy is taken by the old age people, the death benefit is always higher than the maturity value. It has been argued that in the original policy bond typographical error have crept in due to programming fault and typographical error occurred by clerk and columns have been incorrectly printed, therefore, inadvertently maturity sum assured is shown as Rs.2,67,295/- in place of Rs.38,970/-. It has been further stated that the complainant had already signed the discharge voucher and had accordingly accepted an amount of Rs.38,970/- towards the maturity sum of the policy. It was requested by the counsel that the order of both the fora below may be set aside and the complaint be dismissed.

5.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. In the present case, first of all, both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts and therefore, the scope under the revision petition against the concurrent finding is quite limited. The facts cannot be reassessed against concurrent findings by this Commission as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 as follows:-

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

6.   It is seen that the Policy was issued on 14.12.2004 and was valid upto 14.12.2014. It may be true that the policy is issued under table 165 of the LIC, however, it has been admitted that the table was not supplied along with the policy document and therefore the insured may not be having any inkling that he may not get the amount mentioned in the policy. There was no communication made during the policy period by the insurance company mentioning the mistake in the policy document. It is only after the policy matured and question of payment of maturity amount cropped up, the insurance company has raised the issue of typing error in the policy document. Policy is a contract of utmost good faith and parties are bound by this contract. If any typing error is brought to the notice of the other party by any party before the claim becomes due, it can definitely be corrected. In the present case, the rectification of error has been sought once the question of final maturity amount has come up before the Insurance Company. Moreover, the question is whether the complainant would have gone for the policy, had he known that on maturity he will get only Rs.38,970/- after paying regular premium of Rs.1,225- quarterly for 10 years. During the currency of the policy, the insurance company did not point out any mistake in the policy, nor sent any corrected policy document. Now, that the policy has matured and the claim became due on maturity, the insurance company is claiming the defect in the initial contract. The mistake or typographical error in the contract does not seem to be obvious and even if the mistake is justified on the basis of table 165 of the LIC, it is seen that this table was not part of the policy and was not supplied along with the policy document, therefore, the complainant may not be bound by this table, rather, the complainant and the insurance company both are bound by the written contract of insurance as mentioned in the policy document. The policy contract has to be interpreted in the terms as agreed in the contract by the contracting parties. Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs.Chandmull Jain, [1966 ] 3 SCR 500, has held as under:-
17.” …In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.”

7.      In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cherian II(1999 )CPJ 13 (SC ), it has been observed as follows:-
“16. The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. That being so, the insured has also to act strictly in accordance with the statutory limitations or terms of the policy expressly set out therein.”

8.      In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 644, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“6. ….The terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something: Howsoever liberally we may construe the policy but we cannot take liberalism to the extent of substituting the words which are not intended.
9. …It is settled law that terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties, they have to abide by the definition given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy should be interpreted with reference to the terms of policy and not with reference to the definition given in other laws. It is a matter of contract and in terms of the contract the relation of the parties shall abide and it is presumed that when the parties have entered into a contract of insurance with their eyes wide open, they cannot rely on definition given in other enactment.
14. Therefore, it is settled law that the terms of the contract has to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to it. No outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous.”

9. Based on the above authoritative judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the contract conditions of the policy cannot be changed or interpreted differently by any forum and therefore, the alleged typographical error cannot be accepted for changing the same after 10 years of the initial agreed contract i.e. after expiry of the contract period.

10.   Consequent to the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and accordingly the RP No.2282 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.

	advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela