AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision is directed against the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No.FA/160/2011 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum.
BRIEFLY stated facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, ISBT, Kashmiri Gate alleging that he obtained a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs.20,000/ - on 2.8.1986 through LIC agent. The term of the policy was 20 years and monthly premium was Rs.158.60P. At the relevant time the petitioner was in service and the premium was being paid from his salary through his employer. The petitioner/complainant opted for voluntary retirement and thereafter on his request the mode of payment of premium was changed from monthly basis to half yearly basis. The complainant surrendered the policy on 16.11.1993. According to him he has paid premium till 2.8.2006 amounting to Rs.11,426/ -. The respondent has failed to return that money and this according to the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint. Respondent/opposite party in its written statement admitted the factum of insurance policy and claimed that the policy was surrendered on 16.11.1993. Its surrender value was Rs.5,528/ - which was paid to the complainant but due to inadvertence the entry regarding payment was not entered in the record. The respondent also pleaded that the surrender value of the policy was Rs.5,528/ - but due to inadvertence in communication dated 18.7.2006 it was wrongly mentioned as Rs.11,423/ -. The respondent thus prays for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant in his rejoinder reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and denied having received the surrender value of the policy i.e. Rs.5,528/ -.
LEARNED District Forum on appraisal of the of the pleadings and the evidence accepted the plea of the respondent that the surrender value of the insurance policy was Rs.5,528/ - and that the maturity value due to clerical error was wrongly mentioned as Rs.11,423/ - in the letter dated 18.7.2006. The District Forum, however, did not accept the plea of the LIC that the surrender value of Rs.5,528/ - has already been paid to the complainant. District Forum, thus allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,528/ - with 9% simple interest w.e.f. 16.11.1993 besides compensation of Rs.20,000/ - and litigation charges Rs.5,000/ -.
BEING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the State Commission vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal. The petitioner, who appeared in person, has contended that both the Foras below have committed a grave error in failing to appreciate that once the respondent has admitted that the maturity value of the insurance policy was Rs.11,423/ -, the respondent cannot be allowed to plead that the maturity value was Rs.5,528/ -. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
WE do not find merit in the above contention. The respondent, in the written statement, has explained that the figure of Rs.11,423/ - as maturity value is the result of clerical error. Otherwise the maturity value, as per Rules, was Rs.5,528/ -. Both the Foras below have accepted the aforesaid explanation given by the respondent Insurance Company. Otherwise also, in order to be doubly sure we called upon the respondent to file an affidavit of a responsible officer in this regard. Pursuant to the direction the respondent has filed affidavit of Shri Balihar Singh, Assistant Secretary (Legal) of LIC alongwith the calculation sheet and surrender value table. On perusal of the aforesaid affidavit and documents, it is evident that the surrender value of the insurance policy at the relevant time was Rs.5,528/ -. Therefore, the figure of maturity value as Rs.11,423/ - mentioned in the letter dated 18.7.2006 obviously is the result of clerical error, benefit of which cannot be claimed by the complainant. Thus, in our considered view the impugned orders cannot be faulted.
THE result of the above discussion is that the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.