Amarendra Kumar Roy vs BRANCH MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No.247/A/2007, "Branch Manager, LIC versus Amarendra Kumar Roy ", vide which, while allowing appeal, the order passed by the District Forum dated 25.5.2007 in consumer complaint case number 9/S/2007 was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner Amarendra Kumary Roy obtained one Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) policy named "Jeevan Suraksha (Endowment Funding) " bearing no. 452384400 from Balurghat Branch of the LIC on 13.07.2001. This was a policy for five years with yearly instalment of Rs.55,299/- and the date of last payment was 13.07.2006. LIC issued the policy showing monthly pension at Rs.3,366/- and from 13.08.2006 and the capital sum with guaranteed addition was Rs.3,43,750/-. The complainant gave his option under option ''F '' for life pension under which the pension fund was to be returned to the nominee/legal heirs on the death of the annuitant. After completion of five years, LIC sent 13 cheques to the complainant, out of which one cheque was for Rs.1,787/- for the period 13.08.2006 to 31.08.2006 and 12 cheques were for Rs.2,916/- for the period September 2006 to August 2007. The complainant took the plea that he was entitled to get pension of Rs.3,366/- per month as stated on the policy. The case of the LIC, however, is that a sum of Rs.3,366/- per month is payable under option ''D '' and not under option ''F ''. Moreover, under option ''D '', the capital sum amounting to Rs.3,43,750/- is not payable to the nominee / legal heirs after the death of the annuitant. This sum is payable under option ''F '' only and consequently the payment being made per month was less than that allowed under option ''D ''. The complainant approached the District Forum, which allowed his complaint and ordered that he was entitled to get pension @Rs.3,366/- per month and also the capital sum of Rs.3,43,750/- for his nominee / legal heirs after his death. The District Forum ordered the LIC to make payment for the shortfall in the cheques already issued. An appeal was filed by the LIC against this order which was allowed, holding that there was printing error on the policy by which an amount of Rs.3,366/- had been written. In fact, this amount is allowed under option ''D '', whereas the complainant had exercised option ''F '' for getting the pension. It is against this order that the complainant has filed the present revision petition. While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that under the "Jeevan Suraksha (Endowment) " type plan and the tables released by the LIC, the petitioner was entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,366/- per month as pension and this sum has been mentioned on the body of the policy as well. The LIC had, therefore, made grave injustice with the petitioner by allowing pension @Rs.2,916/- per month. He admitted that while exercising option, he had opted for type ''F '' for getting pension and this factor was mentioned on the ''cover note '' as well.

LEARNED counsel for the LIC, however, stated the amount, Rs.3,366/- had been wrongly written on the policy. In fact, this was the amount under option ''D '' and not under option ''F ''. They could not give him pension under option ''D '' and also allow him the benefit of capital sum after the death.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The factum of obtaining the Jeevan Suraksha policy by the complainant and the amount of premium and capital sum with guaranteed addition at Rs.3,43,750/- are admitted by both the parties. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had given option for getting life pension under option ''F '' with return of pension fund to the nominee / legal heirs on the death of the annuitant. However, simply because of the fact that the LIC committed a mistake by printing Rs.3,366/- as amount payable per month on the policy, does not entitle the complainant to get the best under both the options ''D '' & ''F ''. The complainant can only be eligible to get the benefit under option ''D '' or option ''F '' and the LIC is agreeable to allow him to choose any of the two options. It is quite obvious that the amount payable under option ''D '', i.e., Rs.3,366/- is higher than the amount payable under option ''F '', i.e., Rs.2,916/- because the persons opting to get pension under option ''D '' are not eligible to get the payment of the capital sum with guaranteed addition whereas the same is payable to their nominees / legal heirs under option ''F ''.

WE , therefore, hold that the petitioner cannot be given pension under option ''D '' and the benefit of return of capital sum under option ''F ''. He has to choose between one of the two options. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld. The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.