AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT vs Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India

AKHIL Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat (All India Consumer Panchayat), Sangli, in short, Panchayat, and one Mr. Ilahi Attar jointly filed this complaint against the Opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India, for short, the Corporation, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the provisions of Sub-sections (a) (g) (e) & (r) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant Mr. nahi has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,67,000/- as compensation from the Corporation on account of his suffering due to deficiency in service at the instance of Corporation.

THE grievances levelled by the complainant Panchayat against the Corporation are general in nature and are as under: (i) unilateral, abnormal and detrimental changes made in the Surrender Value of the Policies; (ii) incorrect calculations of bonus; (iii) discrimination between two sets of customer in the matter of calculation of bonus and premium etc. (iv) odious attitude and conduct of the Officers of the Corporation in rendering necessary services to the policy holders; and (v) high handedness acquired by the Corporation on account of unfairly advantageous contract of the Corporation.

However the complainant No. 2 Ilahi Attar made specific allegations in detail. The case of complainant Ilahi Attar is that he has purchased six policies from the Corporation. On the first four policies he obtained some loan from the Corporation. His last two policies are assigned to the Parshwanath Cooperative Bank at Sangli. He wanted additional loan in the year 1989 to clear his income-tax dues. On 13.2.1989, Ilahi Attar applied to the Sangli Branch of the Corporation for grant of additional loan on his first four policies for purposes of payment of income-tax dues. Four policies were already with the Corporation in connection with his first loan. He had regularly paid his premiums and was never a defaulter. On 23.2.1989, he personally, visited Sangli Branch of the Corporation to see further developments as regards his 2nd loan application. At that time one Mr. Mohite, Loan Desk Clerk, Sangli Branch was present whereas Mr. Tonpi, Loan Desk Officer, was not available. Attar asked Mr. Mohite about enhanced loan. Mohite informed that due to change in Surrender Value factor, which is now lesser than the old scale, he may not get the loan. When asked about the rationale for lowering down the Surrender Value scale Mr. Mohite expressed his inability to explain. In the meantime, Mr. Jayade, Administrative Officer of the Corporation at Sangli Branch who was wandering near, came there and asked the complainant to contract the higher authorities and get the Surrender Value factor changed. According to Attar, Jayade shouted at the complainant and was seen in a challenging attitude which was not normal. According to Attar, he found the behaviour of Mr. Jayade rude which caused hurt to his sentiments. Attar felt humiliated and decided to represent this incident to the higher ups of the Corporation. This incident was reported in writing by Attar to the Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Sangli Branch and copy of which was endorsed to the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Satara and All India Consumer Panchayat. The complainant sent the complaint by Registered Post with acknowledgment due. A copy of the complaint dated 20.4.1989 is at Annexure D. The postal acknowledgment from the respective authorities are at Annexure-D-1 to D-3. Much correspondence was made by Attar with the Corporation, the copies of which are placed on record at Annexure B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L. M, N, O. In none of the aforesaid correspondence the Corporation informed the complainant till the date of complaint as to what happened to the complaint regarding the rude behaviour of Jayade. Similarly, a letter addressed by complainant at Annexure C, dt. 7.3.1989 was never replied to by the Corporation showing the bonus accrued and Surrender Value in respect of his policies. The complainant had sent a typed sheet stating details of his policy numbers, the amount of policy and years of commencing from 1975 till 2003.

The complainant, therefore, alleged that the Corporation adopted hostile and discriminatory attitude with him and did not inform the amount of accrued bonus as well as the Surrender Value factor of his policies. According to Attar the Corporation even discriminated him in not sending the bonus intimation as was ordinarily sent to other policy holders. Ilahi further alleged that his account was fabricated with wrong calculations. He further alleged that despite the agreement to pay fixed premiums, the Corporation charged him more than the agreed amount of premiums by committing breach of, contract. In this regard he further alleged that he was asked to pay interest by the Corporation of 50 paise for no fault on his part. According to Attar without his permission the Corporation sent discharge vouchers in respect of his policies. It is the contention of Attar that because he made a complaint dated 20.4.1989 at Annexure ''D'' the Corporation deliberately did not inform him Surrender Value and bonus information and discriminated him from other policy holders which caused him humiliation and hurt. Total compensation of Rs. 3,69,276/- and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards damaged on account of expenses for his travelling, mental torture, loss of salary and Court expenses has been therefore claimed by complainant.

THE Corporation on behalf of both opponents filed a common written statement on 5.3.1990. In this written statement, the Corporation has mainly submitted how the premiums are worked out on the basis of certain norms. THE statement also contains how the guaranteed Surrender Value is worked out. THE Corporation has come up that the special surrender value scales are not covered under terms and conditions incorporated in :he policy documents. However, the Corporation stated that the LIC has applied revised Surrender Value scales and informed to all the offices of Life Insurance Corporation in the first week of June 1988 to be worked out from 1.7.1988. It was also made clear that the surrender value and loans upto 30th June, 1988 should be detailed according to old scales and new Surrender Value scales were to be made applicable prospectively with effect from 1.7.1988. THE Corporation also submitted that Life Insurance Corporation of India has not effected any unilateral change in the premiums which are incorporated in the schedule of policy documents. THE Corporation has denied any breach of contracts in this case. However, it has been admitted in para-5 of the written statement that in case of complainant No. 2 founding of next rupee as regards premiums were worked out in the recommendations of Geet Krishna Committee. THEre is also admission in case of complainant No. 2 that the premiums were increased from Rs. 36.50 to Rs. 37, Rs. 19.50 to Rs. 20 and from Rs. 212.80 to Rs. 213.00 in respect of policies Nos. 21019334, 2202263 and 69748514 respectively. THE Corporation denied the cause of action and unfair trade practice in this case. It is important to note that the Corporation did not deny allegations of complainant No. 2 regarding the rude behaviour of Life Insurance Corporation officials with the petitioner on 23.2.1989. When the case was posted for evidence and hearing on 21.3.1990, the complainant No. 2 desired to lead evidence of himself. At that stage Shri S.L. Manjure, Administrative Officer of Life Insurance Corporation, pleaded for adjournment for filing further statement. THE case was posted on 16.4.1990. On that day, another additional statement came to be filed by the Life Insurance Corporation. In this additional statement, there was denial for the first time about the odious and indecent behaviour of Shri Jayde with the complainant No. 2. It has been stated by the Life Insurance Corporation that enquiries were made and they revealed that there was no rude behaviour with complainant No. 2. THEre were no details as to who made enquiries and on what date and what was the outcome of that enquiry. However, in the additional written statement, the Corporation admitted that the bonus intimations were not sent to the Salary Savings scheme policy holders of which complainant is a member. Another admission is about sending the discharge vouchers to the complainant No. 2. Regret is expressed for the same. Again the Corporation expressed its doubt whether the Corporation can apply the Geeta Krishna Committee''s recommendations in rounding off in respect of Salary Savings Scheme policy holders. THE additional ground was raised by the Corporation that this Commission has no jurisdiction as the value of the claim is less than Rs. 1 lakh. The complainant No. 2 Amir Ilahi examined himself as witness No. 1 and the Corporation examined two witnesses. The documents filed by the complainant at Annexures A to Z were in the nature of correspondence between complainant No. 2 and the Corporation. Some documents were in the nature of showing how the surrender value is calculated. Different charts showing surrender value calculations were also filed by Corporation. The statement from the actuarial department of the Corporation was also filed. We have heard Shri S. S. Mantri for complainant No. 1 and Amir Ilahi in person and Shri Gadkari on behalf of the Corporation. We have also gone through the evidence and contents of the documents placed on record by both the sides.

THERE are some admitted facts in this case. It is an admitted fact that the complainant No. 2 is having six policies from the Life Insurance Corporation. Similarly on 13.2.1989 the complainant No. 2 Ilahi had attended the office of Corporation at Sangli Branch and contacted Mr. Mohite, Loan Desk Clerk and that Madhukar Jayade, the Administrative Officer was also present. The correspondence made by both the parties which is at Annexures A to Z is also admitted by both the sides. It is also admitted by the Corporation that the guaranteed surrender value in respect of policies remains unchanged till the end. Similarly, the Corporation has. although hesitatingly, also admitted that in case of complainant No. 2 they have increased premium value without his consent. It is also admitted during the course of arguments that the policy issued to the policy holder is an agreement and at that time whatever the premium was fixed, it cannot be changed without the consent of the policy holder. In view of the admission given by the Corporation we have no difficulty to come to the findings that in case of complainant No. 2 the premium amount was changed without his consent to his disadvantage. The Corporation was unable to place before the Commission the report of Geeta Krishna Committee or any other documents in that respect. In any case, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence of complainant No. 2 and admission of the Corporation in para 5 of its statement that in respect of policy Nos. 21019334, 2202263 and 69748519, the amount of premium was increased from Rs. 36.50 to Rs. 37, Rs. 19.50 to Rs. 20 and Rs. 212.80 to Rs. 213.00 respectively. Thus the allegations made by complainant No. 2 that the Corporation has committed the breach of contracts by unilaterally changing the premium amount stands proved. Even at the stage of argument, Shri Joshi, Administrative Officer of the Corporation who was present before the Commission, has admitted that the increase in the amount of premium has been done by the Corporation without the consent of policy holder. The next grievance of complainant No. 2 in this behalf is that the Corporation did not stop only increasing amount of premium but he was asked to pay interest by the Corporation for the non-payment of illegally increased amount of premium. In support of his contention he filed at Annexure-U dated 1.9.1983. There is clear mention of paise 50 interest to be paid by complainant No. 2. This instance was also quoted to show that he was discriminated by the Corporation compared with other policy holders.

THE next contention of complainant No. 2 is that the Corporation was trying to get rid of him as a policy holder because he made a complaint against the officials of Corporation. To substantiate this contention he pointed out the fact of sending him discharge vouchers in repect of his policies. THE Life Insurance Corporation has admitted this fact in their additional written statement in IV(a). According to Corporation, it was a mistake in sending the discharge vouchers. Although the Corporation regretted in sending the discharge vouchers which were never asked for by the complainant No. 2 in his letter at Annexure-D, there appears to be truth in the allegation of complainant No. 2 that he was being deprived of his right to continue his policies. THE complainant has submitted that sending of discharge vouchers by the Corporation does not appear to be an innocent act. But it was an intentional and deliberate act to demoralize him in his crusade against Corporation. We feel on the basis of the sequence of facts in this case that the discharge vouchers were sent suo-moto by the Corporation after the complainant No. 2 sent a letter at Annexure-D dated 20.4.1989. In para-5 of the letter he had strongly protested the rude and uncalled replies from Mr. Jayade, Administrative Officer, Life Insurance Corporation. Sangli Beanch. Complainant No. 2 submitted that the behaviour of Shri Jayade was not befitting the post and his matured age. According to complainant, the said rude behaviour of Mr. Jayade was with a customer in his own office which greatly hurt his sentiments which provoked him to test it from the point of view of law apart from the consideration of loan facility required by him. THE contentions raised by the complainant in para-5 of his letter at Annexure-D were never replied in any of the correspondence by the Corporation. It was tried to be argued on the basis of a letter at Annexure-G sent by Corporation to Amir Ilahi that it was a reply to Annexure-D. Perused of Annexure-G show that there is no reply to the allegations of rude behaviour in para 5 contained at Annexure-D. Till the case was closed, the Corporation has been unable to show the Commission that there was any attempt on the part of Corporation to reply to the allegations of complainant No. 1 as regards rude behaviour of Jayade. THE Corporation unsuccessfully tried to overcome this difficulty through the evidence of Mohite and Jayade. Mr. Mohite in his evidence has stated that Attar was requesting to do his work urgently as his mother was sick. He further stated that Shri Jayade came there and had a talk with complainant No. 2. He further stated that Attar was told by Jayade to bring papers from Pandharpur Branch if at all he wants to avail of the loan. In his cross examination, however, Mohite admitted that he has read Annexure-A. But he stated that he read it partly. In Annexure-A complainant had mentioned that he wanted the loan for payment of Income tax and there was no mention of illness of his mother. This clearly puts a lie to the statement of . Mohite. He has admitted that he was working under Mr. Jayade for last two years. It is therefore apparent that Mr. Mohite was made to state before the Commission in such manner as to give a clean chit to Mr. Jayade. Had it been a fact as stated by Mr. Mohite the averment could be found in the first written statement filed by the Corporation. But there is a total absence of any such narration by Mohite or Jayade. We are not prepared to believe since he was serving under Mr. Jayade and has given his version to suit the defence of Corporation. Similarly, we find that the improved statement of Mr. Jayade about the incident on 13.2.1989 cannot be accepted. We are also not prepared to believe that Shri Jayade had discussed with the Marketing Manager of Corporation immediately after the incident, about the incident. We are not prepared to believe the evidence of Mr. Mohite and Mr. Jayade regarding the rude behaviour of Mr. Jayade. Nothing has been pleaded on this point in the written statement by the Corporation, except the statement that detailed enquiry was made and no such incident has taken place. That the complainant No. 2 had come to the office of the Corporation, Sangli Branch on 13.2.1989 is an admitted fact. Only what transpired between Jayade and complainant is to be decided. In view of the conspicuous silence on the part of the Corporation not to reply the allegations of the complainant in his letter Annexure-D para 5, there is no reason for us not to accept the allegation made by Ilahi against Shri Jayade. THE series of instances subsequent to the happening on 23.2.1989 clearly indicate that the complainant was being discriminated and harassed by the Corporation.

THE main reason to refuse the additional loan to the complainant .by the, Corporation shown in the correspondence is that it was due to the changed Surrender Value factor. THE first reply to the application of Shri Ilahi is at Annexure-B. This letter is in the hand of Shri Mohite. It has been informed that from 1.7.1988 on the orders from the Central Office, there is change in the surrender value factor. It has been clearly indicated that surrender value scales has been reduced as compared with the previous scale. It has been repeatedly mentioned that the surrender value factors are showing downward trend as compared with the previous scale. THErefore, the complainant was not entitled for any additional loan. According to the complainant, this statement of Corporation that surrender value factor scales are lowered down is an injustice to the policy holder. He further submitted that he repeatedly asked the Corporation to supply him the required papers and to furnish surrender value scales and also old scales to compare surrender value factor. According to him, his request was not granted by the Corporation. In this behalf, he further submitted that those policy holders who wisely surrendered polices before 1.7.1988 have fetched more surrender values than those who continued to pay one year''s premium after 1.7.1988. He further contended that the publicity and propaganda of Life Insurance Corporation to purchase policies amounts to unfair trade practice in view of the downward trend in surrender value calculations. He also submitted that in Corporation''s letter Annexure-B, it is mentioned that the previous guaranteed values have been maintained. Thus, the sanctity of guarantee given by the Corporation is nothing but cheating and deceiving loyal customers. THE complainant has alleged that in his case, the Corporation has illegally reduced the surrender value with a view to denying him the benefits of additional loan. In order to meet this argument, by the complainant, two-fold submissions have been made by the Corporation. According to the first submission, the guaranteed surrender value when the policy is purchased remains unchanged even after 1.7.1988. THE next submission is that there is one special surrender value which is worked out by the acturials of the Corporation and which is not covered under terms and conditions incorporated in the policy documents. THE special Surrender Value can be withdrawn at any time without notice to the policy holder. According to the Corporation, there cannot be any objection to the revision of special surrender value scales effectively from 1.7.1988. THErefore, it is submitted that the application received for surrender value and loans received after 1.7.1988 requires to be dealt with according to the change in special surrender value. It is further submitted that the calculations of special surrender value are for office use only and if any policy holder wants to know he cannot approach the Life Insurance Corporation but he can contact the Agent and Development Officers from whom he had taken the policies. Similarly, it is submitted that bonus calculation also requires to be worked out on the basis of various factors, Shri Gadkar made a statement at the Bar that the policy holders are not entitled to know about their bonus accrued to them on the basis of the policy document but the policy holders are informed about the bonus as a courtesy. We are not impressed about the correctness of the statement made by Shri Gadkar. However we fail to understand how the policy holder can be denied the right to know about surrender value, special surrender value and bonus accrued to a policy holder in respect of his policies. When a policy holder purchases the policy and pays the premium, the contractual relationship as a consumer with the Corporation stands established. The definition (o) appearing in Sub-section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 creates a substantive right in a consumer as a potential user of services, the moment the contractual relationship is established. In our view, a policy holder who pays the premium is a consumer of potential services available to him from the Corporation. He has therefore, a right to know about the guaranteed surrender value, the special surrender value and bonus accrued to him in respect of his policy. It is immaterial as to how the special surrender value and bonus are calculated by the Corporation. The Corporation may be right in taking the assistance of their actuarials for the purpose of calculation of special surrender value and bonus. But the Corporation has to keep the account of every policy holder ready within a reasonable time. We are aware that the Organisation of the Life Insurance Corporation has grown like a baniyan tree in this country, having numerous branches and vast expansion. Despite gigantic nature of the Corporation, it is incumbent on the Corporation to furnish the details of guaranteed surrender value, special surrender value and bonus, to the policy holder when he demands to know this information. It is not that every policy holder comes daily with such a request. But it is a rare occasion when a visitant policy holder demands such information. Well educated and well-informed policy holders may approach the Life Insurance Corporation to know the aforesiad information. It is their right to know and to get the necessary service from the Corporation. Therefore, in such a contingency, in our view the Corporation will not be on firm ground to reject the right of a policy holder to know about his policy. There is nothing offending when a policy holder claims the information from the Corporation. As a service organisation it is incumbent on the Corporation to extend the necessary courtesy to supply the information to policy holder concerning his policies. In our view these are the examples of deficiency in the service of the Life Insurance Corporation

In the instant case, we are at pains to know as to why the Corporation was not giving information to Ilahi as regard his policies. Even till today, the letter addressed by Ilahi to the Corporation which is at Annexure-C has not been replied. In his letter Annexure-C, the Complainant had enclosed a blank form asking for the information of bonus accrued on his own policies, the rate of bonus and additional bonus in respect of his policies. The form is meticulously worked out from 1975 upto year 2003. It has been frankly admitted by the Corporation that no reply was sent to the Annexure-C and no information was supplied to the complainant.

THE complainant has submitted several instances to show as to how surrender value calculations were wrongly made by the Corporation. Our attention was drawn to Annexure Z-4 in respect of Policy No. 21919333. Annexure-Z-3 dated 14.3.1989 shows entitlement of loan at Rs. 3,470/-, Z-4 dated 18.3.1989 for the previous year shows the entitlement of Rs. 4,870/-. We fail to understand when the loan for the year 1987 is Rs. 3,470/- how it could be more for the previous year 1986 amounting to Rs. 4870/- when in the year 1987 the policy holder paid the premium. Obviously, both Z-3 and Z-4 cannot be said to be correctly calculated by the Corporation. Another instance pointed out by the complainant is from Annexure-G and Q dated 6.5.1989 and 10.5.1989 respectively. Both the letters are sent by Corporation within a period of four days addressed to Shri Ilahi. In Annexure-G, the Corporation has shown the surrender value of policy No. 69748519 as Rs. 6053.80 whereas in Annexure-Q issued after four days it is specifically mentioned that surrender value of the same policy cannot be given. This contradictory stand is coming from the Corporation from their office at Sangli. From this instance, it is abundantly clear that there is no clear stand with the Corporation as regards surrender value calculations in respect of the policy of the complainant. These instances quoted by the complainant No. 2 create a reasonable belief in our mind that there is something wrong somewhere in the calculation of surrender value despite the assistance of actuarial department of the Corporation. We are, therefore, inclined to believe that the complaint of Shri Ilahi in respect of surrender value calculation is correct. The Corporation has refused the additional loan to the complainant on the basis of surrender value calculations. In other words, if the surrender value calculations made by the Corporation are wrong, the rejection of additional loan to the complainant on the basis of wrong calculation is also incorrect. We are therefore of the view that there were various deficiencies in the service of the Life Insurance Corporation.

THE complainant had submitted that he had no grudge against Shri Jayade personally. He has made a statement about the utterances made by Shri Jayade on his visiting the Corporation Branch on 23.2.1989. From the contents of the complaint and the deposition of the complainant we find that he had no intention to exaggerate the nature of the incident. Had he exaggerated the incident, he would have attributed more allegations to Shri Jayade but the complaint was truthful in his allegations in the complaint and had never shown any tendency to exaggerate. He also has not stated any such thing so as to see that Mr. Jayade suffers in any way in his service nor had he demanded the transfer of Shri Jayade. It appears that the complainant is well educated and serving in the State Bank of India and had not made any complaint in the past, against the Corporation. THEre is no reason for him to make false allegations against Jayade unless he was really hurt due to the utterances of Shri Jayade in the office. As a bona fide policy holder, he felt aggrieved and was compelled to make the complaint to the Corporation and he had endorsed a copy of the complaint to the chairman of the Corporation, Divisional Manager at Satara. We could not find an iota of evidence on the part of the Corporation to show that any of its officers acknowledged the complaint and took any action thereon. Had the Corporation been prompt in making the enquiry about the incident and to inform the outcome of the enquiry to the complainant, this complaint would not perhaps have seen the light of the day. THE complainant pursued his grievance and indulged in a long correspondence which has been termed by the Corporation and indulging in lengthy correspondence couched in a maze of verbal extravaganza. It is very unfortunate that even when the arguments were heard, the Corporation did not indicate any regret for the lapses on their part in this case except for sending the discharge voucher and maintained their stand that nothing has happened in the office as alleged by the complainant and maintained that their surrender value calculations are correct. THE complainant on the country has shown us that the Corporation was indulging in wrong calculations. THE complainant pointed out the letter at Annexure-T written by the Life Insurance Corporation. In that letter the Corporation has appreciated the keenness of the complainant in detecting the mistake committed by the Corporation in valuing his claim at Rs. 20,000/- which in fact should have been for Rs. 25,000/-. All these clearly show that there can be mistakes in calculation by the Corporation and the Corporation should openly come out to correct the mistakes of calculation. In such large organization, there can be mistakes of calculations and therefore, it is reasonably expected from the Corporation to correct the mistakes when asked for by the concerned person. THEre is no reason to make it a prestige issue by the officers of the Corporation in respect of such mistakes and to commit further mistakes to cover up their previous mistakes. In these circumstances, after consideration of the complaint, the evidence and documents we are of the view that the complaint of Amir Ilahi is genuine and required to be redressed by this Commission. The findings of this Commission show that there was deficiency in the service of Life Insurance Corporation. Shri Gadkar appearing for the Life Insurance Corporation has submitted that there is a legal sanction to calculate the surrender value under the Insurance Act to which we have no quarrel. In short, according to Shri Gadkar the evidence of the complainant is not reliable and claim made by him should be rejected. As we have stated earlier, Shri Gadkar had made a statement that the policy holder has no right to know the calculation of bonus. He also made a statement that the consent of policy holder is not necessary in case a change is made in the refunding of his premiums in relation to his policy. As stated earlier, we are not impressed by the statement of Shri Gadkar.

LASTLY, Shri Gadkar submitted that the valuation stated by the complainant in respect of his claim is exaggerated and therefore, his complaint is not maintainable as this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute where the value is less than one lakh rupees. This contention raised by Shri Gadkar cannot be sustained since the complainant has elaborated his claim in para 10 of his complaint. He also filed an additional statement of claim indicating his value at Rs. 4,19,276/- including his amount of compensation and damages at Rs. 50,000/-. It is true that this Commission has jurisdiction to try dispute of the complainant where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 1 lakh, but it does not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs under the provisions of sub-section (a)(i) of Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The jurisdiction of the State Commission is invoked in this case as regards the valuation of service and compensation which clearly exceeds Rs. 1 lakh. The jurisdiction is to be found on the basis of the claim laid by the party and not on the basis of relief granted. In the instant case, we found that the complainant possess the Corporation policies of the value of more than Rs. 1 lakh with double benefit it comes to Rs. 2 lakh & bonus accrued which is calculated at Rs. 38,312/-. Although the amount of penalty of Rs. 1,28,688 can be ignored, on the basis of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- claimed by the complainant in addition to the services, the total value is clearly above Rs 1 lakh. In our view, therefore, if the complaint falls within our jurisdiction for our decision.

FOR the reasons stated above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Corporation to remove the deficiency in service pointed out by the complainant in respect of computation of the Surrender Value calculation, special surrender value calculation and bonus calculation in respect of his policies mentioned in the application. Annexure ''A'', dated 13.2.1989 within a period of two months from the date of this judgment and intimate the result of complaint to the complainant within the given period. If the Corporation fails to carry out the deficiency in service as per the directions of this Commission, the complainant will be free to approach this Commission again, if so advised. This Commission has come to the conclusion that the complainant No. 2 Amir Ilahi has suffered considerable loss mentally as also incurred substantial loss monetarily in making lengthy correspondence with the Life Insurance Corporation and was required to spend for typing, postage, zeroxing copies of correspondence, legal consultation, travelling and lost his leave account. In our view the complainant who is the potential user of services from the Life Insurance Corporation had to suffer mentally and monetarily due to the negligence of the Life Insurance Corporation the Opponents. We have estimated the loss caused to the complainant No. 2 Amir Ilahi at a round figure of Rs. 20,000/- on all accounts stated above and order that Amir Ilahi be paid Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation within a period of one month from today. Complaint allowed.