LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs Dhiraj Khanna And Anr.

PETITIONER , Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC), was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the LIC.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant proposed to the petitioner,''LIC for issue of two single -premium -policies'' under LIC''s Jeevan Nidhi Plan No. 169, one for Rs. 3,10,000 and second for Rs. 3,50,000, for which he paid Rs. 2,52,144 and Rs. 2,84,690 respectively to the LIC, after providing for a set -off of 10% rebate as per Circular / Scheme dated 27.10.2004. But when he received the policies, the policies were issued for sum of Rs. 2,75,000 (against proposal for Rs. 3,10,000) and Rs. 3,15,000 (against proposal for Rs. 3,50,000). The petitioner protested this to the LIC but when the matter was not getting sorted out, a complaint was filed by the respondent / complainant before the District Forum who after hearing the parties and interpreting the terms of the Policy, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent / complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, who allowed the appeal and held that the premiums deposited by the respondent/appellant in case of both the policies shall be treated for the sum assured of Rs. 3,10,000 and Rs. 3,50,000. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the father of the respondent/complainant and perused the material on record. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the controversy is limited, i.e., relatable to the interpretation of the wording in the circular dated 27.10.2004, wherein under the Single premium policies, the following appears: "For single pretmum policies: Sum assured Rebatef (Rs.) 50,000 to 1,00,000 Nil 1,05,000 to 3,00,000 5% O S.A. 3,05,000 and above 100% O S.A."

THE basic difference in the perception and interpretation of the parties is relatable to the words/figure O'' appearing between the words %'' and S.A.'' According to the petitioner this has to be interpreted as per thousand whereas it has been the contention of the respondent/complainant that this should be read as of, meaning thereby that as per LIC premium has to be arrived at by reading this to be treated as 10 per thousand, whereas it is the contention of the respondent / complainant, that it should be 10% of S.A (sum assured).

WE have very carefully gone through the material on record and the written arguments on this point advanced by both the parties. We had no go but to fall back on the internet and this is what we have been able to get: "Percent sing Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia The percent sign (%) is the symbol used to indicate, a percentage (that the preceding number is divided by one hundred). It is represented in Unicode by U+0025. Related signs include the permille (per thousand) sign %o (Unicode : U+2030) and the permyriad (per ten thousand) sign %oo (Unicode : U+2031; also known as a basis point), which indicate that a number is divided by one thousand or ten thousand respectively."

(Emphasis supplied)

IT is argued by the father of the respondent/complainant that in the Circular dated 27.10.2004, the controversial word O'' is different that it appears percent whereas in the material being relied upon how (wikipedia) is "the figure of the same size." We are afraid that mere perusal of the wikipedia will leave us in no doubt that irrespective of the size of O'' appearing in the circular, leave us in no doubt about the intent of the petitioner, that as per international understanding/practice, it has to be read per thousand''. Nothing to the contrary, except the variation of size/dimension of the figure O'' has been shown to us by the petitioner. In the aforementioned circumstances we are unable to take any other view than as has been explained in the Wikipedia, in view of which we are in full agreement with the contention of the petitioner that it has to be read as per thousand'' of sum assured and not as % of sum (sum assured).

SECOND leg of the argument advanced by respondent/complainant, is that deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, is writ large on the face of it, for the simple reason that as per proposal form they had sought two separate policies amounting to Rs. 3,10,000 and Rs. 3,50,000 and deposited the premiums accordingly. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the amount of premium deposited by the respondent/complainant, then either they should have demanded the additional premium as per the petitioner''s understanding of the circular, or, they should not have issued the policies at reduced term as it was not part of the proposal form. To this there is no satisfactory response from the petitioner, hence deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner is writ large.

IN the aforementioned, circumstances, we specifically put it to the respondent/complainant''s father as to whether he would be willing to pay the difference of premium now and get the policies made effective with retrospective effect, i.e., from the date of issue which is almost five years ago, or, whether he would like to have the refund of the deposited amount along with interest. He clearly and unequivocally opted for the latter option.

IN view of the clear deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, we direct the LIC to refund the amount of premium along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit of premium(s) till the date of payment. We are of the view that the respondent/complainant has been unduly harassed for no fault of his in view of which we are inclined to direct the petitioner LIC to pay cost of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent/complainant. All the above payment be made within six weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order failing which the respondent/complainant shall be free to proceed against petitioner LIC under Sections 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. R.P. disposed of.