IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in correction of mistakes amounts to deficiency in service.

Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition is against the order dated 14.09.2000 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal no. 389 of 2003. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent/complainant against the order dated 14.07.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Motihari (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in complaint case no. 194 of 2001 by which the District Forum had dismissed the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant (respondent in this petition) before the District Forum was that he had obtained a Jeevan Dhara annuity policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, opposite party (OP) in December 1989. The annual premium for this policy was Rs.10,788.50. The policy document issued to the complainant showed the entitlement of monthly annuity of Rs. 2,000/- and the “Give” (lumpsum payout) amount of Rs.2 lakh. The complainant continued to pay the annual premium till December 1997. However, when he thereafter sought payment of the annuity and “Give” amount, the OP called for the original policy document and unilaterally reduced the monthly annuity amount to Rs.1560/- and the “Give” amount to Rs.1,56,000/- on the ground that there had been a clerical mistake in typing out the monthly annuity and the “Give” amount. As repeated requests did not lead to redressal of his grievance, the complainant filed the above-mentioned complaint before the District Forum seeking payments in accordance with the original policy document. The OP resisted the complaint by mainly contending that according to the terms of the Jeevan Dhara policy, the amounts of monthly annuity and “Give” payout for the premium being paid by the complainant were Rs.1,560/- and Rs.1,56,000/- respectively and the higher amounts typed on the policy document were on account of clerical mistake.

3. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, the District Forum accepted the version of the OP and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal with the following directions to the OP:

“12. Therefore, we find the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India deficient in service for non-payment of the amount mentioned under the original Jeevan Dhara policy. The appellant is entitled to get initial pension as well as payable amount mentioned in the original bond issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India with interest @ 9% till realization.

13. Accordingly, we direct the Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay the pension amount of Rs.2000/- and total payable amount as per the agreement in the original bond. We also direct to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment to a senior citizen and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.”

4. It is against this order that the OP/LIC has filed this revision petition.

5. We have heard Mr. Amitabh Marwah, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one was, however, present on behalf of the respondent/complainant despite service of dasti notice.

6. The limited point involved in this petition is whether there was a clerical error in printing/typing the figures of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,39,163/- of the monthly annuity and the “Give” amounts. Before us, the petitioners have produced typed copies of the terms and conditions of the Jeevan Dhara policy and the calculation showing that for monthly premium of Rs.10,788.50, the correct amount of the monthly annuity was Rs.1,560/- and the “Give” amount was Rs.1,56,008/-. From the proposal form filled in and signed by the respondent/complainant in his own hand (a copy of which was also placed on record), it is seen that while the “Give” amount was written as Rs.1,56,000/-, the monthly annuity amount was Rs.2,000/-. It is the contention of the petitioners that the monthly annuity would be 1% of the “Give” amou