Life Insurance Corporation of India vs PANDIT GOPAL KATKADE

THIS appeal filed by LIC is directed against the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Nasik in consumer complaint No. 187/06 dated 5. 3. 2007, whereby the Learned District Consumer Forum was pleased to allow the complaint and directed O. P. /lic to pay Rs. 40,000 as per policy to the complainant within 30 days. Briefly case of the parties in the Forum below may be summarized as under: respondent herein had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of LIC officials. His case in the Forum below was that he had purchased Money Back Children Policy from the LIC bearing No. 969648634 Code No. 113-23-15. Amount assured was Rs. 40,000. Monthly premium was Rs. 236 and complainant paid 41 monthly instalments within time. It was the policy purchased on the life of complainant''s son. Unfortunately, his son died on 16. 3. 2005. He lodged claim with LIC. However LIC refunded back amount of Rs. 9676 that is total amount he had deposited as premium amount towards the said policy. Aggrieved by this action of LIC, consumer complaint was filed by the respondent claiming Rs. 40,000 sum assured under policy and interest @ 15% p. a. plus Rs. 20,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 3000 towards cost.

APPELLANT filed written statement and pleaded that complaint was absolutely false and it should be summarily rejected. O. P. pleaded that the policy purchased by the complainant on the life of his son was to commence risk from 28. 11. 2005, which was specifically mentioned in the policy issued to the complainant. As per terms and conditions of this policy, risk was to commence only after his son attained age of 7 years or risk was to commence two years after the date of commencement of policy. Unfortunately, his son died even before risk under the policy commenced. According to LIC, risk was to commence on 28. 11. 2005 and son of the complainant died on 16. 3. 2005 and therefore, they had as per the rules, refunded whole of the amount of premium deposited till then by the complainant and, therefore, they were not liable to pay entire amount of sum assured under the said policy and, therefore, they had rightly repudiated the claim. Learned District Consumer Forum in its order held that the date of commencement of risk as mentioned in the policy was 28. 11. 2005 and date of birth of said child of the complainant was 25. 1. 1998. However, date of birth mentioned on the policy was 28. 11. 2024. Forum below got swayed away by the typing mistake found in the policy and directed that policy should be honoured, because policy was not properly issued to the complainant mentioning correct dates and, therefore, according to Forum below, there was deficiency in service under Section 2 (1) (g) on the part of LIC and it allowed the complaint and directed LIC to pay amount of Rs. 40,000 to the complainant. As such LIC filed this appeal.

We have gone through the policy dates. Date of proposal as can be seen from the policy itself is 25. 11. 2001 and policy specifically mentioned that date of commencement of risk was 28. 11. 2005. In first column of policy, date of commencement mentioned as 28. 11. 2001 erroneously and beneath policy number in next column, there is mention of 28. 11. 2005 as date of commencement of risk and policy was to remain in force till 28. 11. 2016. Date of birth was also wrongly mentioned in the column of date of birth, in which it is mentioned as 28. 11. 2024. But date of birth of the child was 25. 1. 1998. So there is typing mistake in issuing the policy, which is clear on the face of record. But that does not mean that we should give benefit of typing mistake to the complainant, enrich him despite the fact that under the terms and conditions of the present policy, he was not entitled to get anything except what is refunded back by LIC. LIC paid the refund of the premium on 18. 6. 2005. In the written statement itself, LIC on page 2 clearly mentioned that policy commenced on 28. 11. 2001, but risk commenced on 28. 11. 2005 and before commencement of risk, the child whose life was assured, expired on 16. 3. 2005. This was a peculiar policy and risk under this plan was to commence after two years from the date of commencement of policy or the policy anniversary immediately following the completion of 7 years of age, whichever is later. It means that policy was to commence after 7th birth anniversary of the life assured. Life assured was born on 25. 1. 1998. He would have attained age of 7 years on 24. 1. 2005.

CLAUSE No. 2 of the said policy clearly mentioned that this policy shall stand cancelled in case of life assured shall die before the commencement of risk and in such an event, sum of money equal to all the premiums paid without any deduction whatsoever shall become payable to the person entitled to the policy money. Now when date of commencement of risk of the policy was mentioned as 28. 11. 2005, special provision in Clause No. 2 is attracted and under this Clause 2, the policy stood cancelled, because of death of life assured even before commencement of risk. So if we read these two provisions, commencement of risk and special provision mentioned in clause No. 2, it will be crystal clear that child died even before commencement of risk of policy i. e. on 28. 11. 2005 (he died on 16. 3. 2005) and, therefore, clause No. 2 came into picture and under Clause No. 2, complainant, who was father of deceased life assured was entitled to get full premium amount without deduction and nothing more and not certainly, the sum assured owing to death of his son and that amount was rightly given to the complainant by cheque, which he accepted. In the circumstances, order passed by the Forum below is bad in law and cannot be allowed to sustain. We are surely of the view that some typing mistakes in printing dates columnwise cannot give rise to contractual obligation of the LIC to pay the amount of the sum assured and when that sum is not payable, because of Clause No. 2 found in the policy itself. As such we are inclined to allow this appeal. Hence we pass the following order: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Impugned order passed by the Forum below is quashed and set aside. 3. Complaint stands dismissed. 4. Parties are left to bear their own cost. 5. Pronounced and dictated in the open Court.

Appeal allowed.