The main legal point established in the judgment is that the terms of an insurance policy must be strictly construed, and any alleged typographical error must be evident and brought to the notice of both parties before the claim becomes due.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Prem Narain, Presiding Member - This first appeal has been filed by the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India against the order dated 21.6.2018 passed in consumer complaint No. 745 of 2015 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission').

2. The facts of the present case are that the complainant had taken LIC Jeevan Saral Policy from opposite parties Surat Branch. Coverage provides maturity sum assured Rs.25,00,000/-, Death benefit sum assured Rs.3,94,900/- and Accident Benefit sum assured Rs.15,00,000/-. Policy period was from 28.3.2004 to 28.3.2015. Complainants have paid in aggregate Rs.13,65,100/- as premium amount during the validity period of the policy. On the date of maturity, complainant No.2 lodged his claim for the maturity value being the sum assured of Rs.25 lakhs. Opposite party refused to pay the sum assured and merely wanted to pay the death benefit of Rs.3,94,900/- along with loyalty addition of Rs.1,67,832/-. On 21.05.2015, complainant No.2 sent letter to opposite party and various other authorities. Complainant then filed complaint in the State Commission. The State Commission has passed the following order on 21.06.2018:-

"1. The consumer complaint is partly allowed.

2. Opponent is hereby directed to pay to the complainant total amount of Rs.26,67,832/- under "LIC's Jeevan Saral (with Profits)" vide Policy bearing No.863332999 with interest @9% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. since 28.03.2015 till actual payment.

3. The opponent do pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental pain and agony and amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation. The opponent is entitled to deduct the amount, if any, paid to the complainant.

4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties."

3. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage and perused the record. Counsel for the appellant stated that there is typographical error in the policy, however, the State Commission has not considered this apparent typing error on the face of record. The learned counsel explained that amounts mentioned against the death claim and the maturity value have been interchanged in the policy document. The amount of Rs.25 lacs has been mentioned against the maturity amount, whereas this was intended to be mentioned against the death claim. Similarly, the death claim amount of Rs.3,94,900/- was to be mentioned against the maturity amount but the same has been mentioned against the death claim. Learned counsel mentioned that the policy has been issued in accordance with table 165 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. A perusal of table 165 will clearly show that the maturity amount will be only Rs.3,94,900/- for the term of the policy in question and the amount of premium involved. Though it is a fact that table 165 is not supplied with the policy document, however, the policy states that the insurance is under the table number 165 of the LIC. Thus, the application of table 165 cannot be disputed. The counsel further argued that otherwise also, the death claim amount should be much more as compared to the maturity amount. Actually, in the policy these amounts have been inadvertently interchanged and the complainant is trying to take the advantage of this typing error. It was requested by the counsel that the order of the State Commission may be set aside and the complaint be dismissed as the insurance company is ready to give the amount of Rs.3,94,900/- as the maturity amount along with the loyalty bonus of Rs.1,67,832/-. To support his argument, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-

1. "Satya Deo Malviya Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., OP 178 of 1995, decided on 19.01.2004 (NC). It has been held that:

5. It is true that in the original insurance policy which was produced before us for our perusal the amount which is mentioned is Rs. 25,00,000/-. Howeve