Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President — The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, held that the complaint of Dr. B.B. Goyal, Reader in Public Administration, Punjab University, Chandigarh, succeeds and the Director, Postal Life Insurance, Calcutta through Chief Postmaster General, PLI Section, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh was directed to treat the whole life policy of the complainant upto the age of 60 years and not 58 years. Besides this a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded as compensation and further a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as costs. Aggrieved against this judgment dated 12.5.1997, the present appeal has been attempted by the Director, Postal Life Insurance.

2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant is a senior teacher in Punjab University and he applied for a convertible whole life policy requesting that it should mature at the age of 60 years. This was admissible according to the brochure published and supplied to the aforesaid complainant. This proposal made on 8.2.1994 was accepted on 18.2.1994. Subsequently on 18.7.1994 the Director, PLI, Calcutta conveyed that the policy would be upto the maximum 58 years and premium should not have been calculated believing that policy was to mature at the age of 60 years.

3. Here also our attention has been drawn to pamphlet with the heading 'Postal Life Insurance' brochure Appendix 'A' and Clause 3 thereof is reproduced as under:

"3. Convertible whole life Assurance: This is a whole life policy affecting the twin benefit of protection for large sum assured and cheaper rate of premium in the initial 5 years with a further option to convert the policy into an endowment assurance policy maturing at a specified age of 50, 55, 58 & 60 years."

A perusal of the aforesaid clause shows that it was advertised in the pamphlet that the policy would mature even at the age of 60 years. The terms and conditions of the pamphlet were acted upon and on 23.11.1994 the local Assistant Director of Postal Life Insurance requested the counter-part at Calcutta that the premium from Dr. B.B. Goyal, Reader in Punjab University should be recoverable till the age of 60 years and not upto the age of 58 years. After receipt of the prescribed form and considering it for about 10 days the appellant accepted the proposal on 18.2.1994. It shall not be fair to say that the period of the maturity of the policy was maximum to the age of 58 years. Here brochure Appendix 'A', the pamphlet contains the specific figure of 60 years not only in the aforesaid paragraph 3 but also in other paragraphs such as Nos. 1 & 2 as well. In this case not only the brochure referred to above, even the original correspondence between Shri Sarwan Singh, Assistant Director to his counter- part at Calcutta clearly showed that not only the complainant even the local office fully believed that there was option for applying for a policy to mature at the age of 60 years. According to the brochure and it was accepted by the local office on account of the aforesaid avertisement. On our enquiry during the course of arguments we found that the complainant who is respondent here is a person of limited means and it was after going through the advertisement and other terms and conditions and the rate of premium described therein his proposal was considered and accepted after 10 days and in the circumstances obviously it shall be unfair to compel the complainant to pay premium at a higher rate. There is no evidence to show or to demolish the authenticity of the brochure Appendix 'A'. A perusal of Clause 3 referred to above shows that the policy which was to mature at the age of 60 years was also advertised and made available by the appellant. On behalf of the appellant an attempt has been made to establish as if the figure 60 years was wrongly typed in Appendix 'A'. This contention cannot be acceptable. It was a brochure issued by Post & Telegraphs Department, a totally Government owned agency. No amendment of any kind was published or at