Back
2011 Supreme(SC) 1176
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Usha Kumari Ranawat - Appellant
Vs.
The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India & Another - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9485 of 2009)
The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India & Another - Appellant
Vs.
Usha Kumari Ranawat - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4833 of 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16984 of 2009)
Decided on : 12-05-2011
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Mr. Abhinav Maheshwari, Ms. Saimina, Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Mr. C. Parmasivam, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Mr. C. Parmasivam, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Mr. Abhinav Maheshwari, Ms. Saimina
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Claim of compensation – Commission - Convenience - Account of balance amount annuity for months plus compensation and besides deposited in excess by complainant be paid to Respondent and balance amount be refunded to Appellant-LIC - Appeal stands disposed of accordingly – Held, Respondent challenged order of State Commission by filing an of Act - National Commission accepted Respondents plea that Appellant was not entitled to claim balance of premium because insured had applied for New policy and not for New policy - After taking note of fact that Appellant had deposited amount received by her in terms of order passed by State Commission National Commission declared that she is entitled plus compensation - Appellant has assailed impugned order by contending that National Commission committed an error by holding that nominee of deceased was not entitled to lump sum amount balance of premium deposited by insured and that as per terms of policy she was entitled to get monthly annuity for remaining months - Arguments in these cases were heard on various adjourned to enable senior counsel appearing for Appellant to seek further instructions in matter Today senior counsel placed before Court a statement containing details of amount payable to Appellant in terms of orders passed by State and National Commissions – Court have given serious thought to entire matter - Both insurer and insured do not appear to have acted with due diligence - It is difficult to accept assertion made on behalf of Appellant that her husband had signed form which was filled by agent of Respondent without going through contents Rather it can reasonably be presumed that he had done so with full knowledge of nature and terms of New policy – Court also agree counsel for Respondent that on discovery of patent mistake committed at time of issue of policy Annexure which was contrary to proposal submitted by deceased competent authority was justified in issuing New Plan1 keeping in view peculiar facts of case court are inclined to accept prayer made by Counsel for Appellant that Respondent should not be allowed to take advantage of its mistake and deprive nominee of deceased of balance - Appeals disposed
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, "the National Commission") whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short, "the State Commission") was partly allowed in the following terms:
“In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. We direct the State Commission that out of the total amount of Rs. 38,24,592/-lying in deposit with the state commission, a sum of Rs. 19,45,953/- i.e. (Rs. 11,21,361/- on account of balance amount of annuity for 57 months plus Rs. 4 lakh as compensation and besides Rs. 4,24,592/- deposited in excess by the complainant) be paid to the Respondent and the balance amount be refunded to the Appellant-LIC. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.”
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to by their description in the appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9485 of 2009.
4. Shri Kamal Singh Ranawat (the Appellant's husband) submitted proposal dated 9.5.2003 to the Respondent for issue of New Jeevan Akshay1 policy and deposited the premium of Rs. 26 lakhs. In terms of that policy, Shri Kamal Singh Ranawat was to receive monthly annuity/pension at the rate of Rs. 19,673/- during his lifetime. However, instead of issuing New Jeevan Akshay-1 policy, the Respondent issued policy under the scheme known as "New Jeevan Dhara1 Plan/New Jeevan Suraksha Plan1". After some time, 11 post dated cheques of Rs. 19,673/- and one cheque of Rs. 14,596/- were issued in the name of the insured. He encashed three cheques. The remaining cheques could not be encashed because the insured died on 10.9.2003. After the death of her husband, the Appellant returned the unrealized 9 cheques to the Respondent and lodged claim for refund of the balance amount. The Respondent declined her request and offered to pay the annuity of Rs. 19,673/- per month for the remaining guaranteed period in accordance with New Jeevan Akshay1 policy.
5. Feeling dissatisfied with the reply of the Respondent, the Appellant filed a complaint u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act") and prayed for issue of a direction to the Respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 26 lakhs deposited by the insured with interest amounting to Rs. 1,45,800/- and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- lakh for mental and physical agony. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondent, it was pleaded that Kamal Singh Ranawat had submitted proposal for getting annuity policy under New Jeevan Akshay1 Plan, but by mistake New Jeevan Dhara1 Plan/New Jeevan Suraksha Plan1 (with profit) was issued. According to the Respondent, in terms of New Jeevan Akshay1 (Table 146-01) Plan, monthly pension was payable to the insured for the guaranteed period of five years. It was further pleaded that upon receipt of notice, the mistake committed in issuing policy under New Jeevan Dhara Plan was rectified and fresh policy under New Jeevan Akshay1 Plan, as proposed by late Shri Kamal Singh Ranwat, was made available to the complainant along with letter dated 17.1.2004.
6. After considering the pleadings and documents produced by the parties and taking note of the relevant statutory provisions, the State Commission ruled that the Appellant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 25,46,058/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 20.3.2004. The State Commission noted that pursuant to the proposal form Annexure 1, policy Annexure 2 was issued under the scheme known as "New Jeevan Dhara1 Plan/New Jeevan Suraksha1 (with profit) Table No. 146-01 but after receipt of notice, the earlier policy was cancelled and a new policy known as "New Jeevan Akshay Plan1" was issued and held that this was legally impermissible. In the opinion of the State Commission, the terms of policy issued by the Res
