Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 27923
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
LIC Of India – Appellant
Versus
Bijoy Chandra Jena – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
Insurers must honor maturity payouts as stipulated in policies, irrespective of claimed typographical errors.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Complaint regarding maturity amount of insurance policy - Complainant purchased an insurance policy with an expected maturity of Rs.2,50,000/- but was only paid Rs.84,604/-, leading to dispute over the maturity amount. (Paras 3-11)
(B) Deficiency of service - The court held that the claim of typographical error by the OP is insufficient to deny the maturity sum assured, constituting unfair trade practice under the Act. (Paras 9-10)
(C) The public expectation doctrine emphasizes that individuals expect fulfillment of contractual obligations in financial dealings. The OP must adhere to the financial commitments as stipulated in the policy. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The complainant filed a grievance regarding the payout on an insurance policy, claiming a misunderstanding over the maturity amount, leading to a legal appeal.
Findings of Court:
The complaint is allowed, directing payment of Rs.1,65,396/- with interest and litigation costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether a typographical error could absolve the OP from its obligation under the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that typographical mistakes do not negate contractual obligations; thus, the OP must fulfill its financial duty.
Result: The appeal was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the disputed insurance policy and payments. (Para 3) |
530 SI. No. Date of ORDER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order of Order Order
13.4.22 FIRST APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and.the respondent who appears in person.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile called the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (hereinafter 'Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective sthtus before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased LICP blicy "JeevanS aral" with profits from the OP vide Policy No. 585017656 for sum eer assúred of Rs.2,50,000/- and the policy commenced on 26.1.2004 with the date of maturity as 26.1.2014. It is alleged inter alia that the complaihanth as paid every year Rs.12,010/- till 26.1.2013 and the policy matured in January, 2014. When the complainant surrendered the OGP-MP-CTCP (FS&CW) 2-1,00,000-29-6-2020 SI. No Date of of Orderl ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Order taken on Order policy before the OP for granting maturity value for Rs.2,50,000/-,h e was only paid Rs84,604/-i.e. Consisting of Rs.65,080/- plus loyalty of Rs19,524/-. Complainant beinga ggrieved filed the case for direction to the OP to pay Rs.2,50,000/-the maturity anount with interest at the rate of 10% from the due date for payment of maturity amount along with Rs.10,þoo/-as litigation cost.
4. OP filed writtenv ersion stat)ng that the policy has been purchased with death benef]t and accident covered for Rs.2,50,000/- but the mat1rity sum assured is Rs.65,080/-only. Inadvertently,o p the face of the policy bond it was mentioned as Rsl2,s0,000/- instead of Rs.65,080/-.I t is nothing but typographicale rror. It is also averred that it is not togically corfect to the condition of policy to pay Rs.2,50,000/-S. o th naturitya mount with
530 SI. No. Dale of ORDER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order of Order Order loyalty have been already paid by the OP. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
District Forum
5 After hearing both sides,learned passed the following order:
"XXX XXX XXX The complaint is allowed on contest against the OP with cost. The OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,65,396/- (Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand three hundred ninety six) only to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 11/1 1/201 4 till the datel of actua! payment. The OP shall also pay to the complalnant a sum of Rs.5, 000/ towards cost of litigation. The above order is to be compiied with by the OP within a period pf one month from the date of communication,f ailing which the complainant shail be at liberty to execule the order aginst the OP in dccQrdance learned counself or the appellant submitted that as per policy bond the malurity arount hàs already been paid to the complainant. Lened counsel for the OGP-MF-CTCPfSACW)2-0 O00-z 2020
SI. No. of Order
|Office note as to action (if any), Date of ORDER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order Order
appellant submitted that the mistake being very bonafide one, the appellant should not be saddled with to pay money more as this extra amount of money is public money. Learned District Forum hhs committed error by not understanding the policy properly and the grievance of the OP with proper perspectives. According to him the real maturity value is Rs.65,080/- with Rs.19,524/- but not Rs.2,50,000/ as mentioned in policy bond. Learned District Forum should have applied judicial mind to the policy bond. Therefore, he submitted to consider the case of the ppellant liberally. He submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. 7. Respondent submitted that mentioned in the policy bond th¡t Rs.2,50,000/- is the
loyalty of the it has been clearly
530-a taken on Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Date of SI. No.
Order of Order t
