AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 16.11.2010, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 399/2008, "Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Smt. Yashoda Jain & Ors., " vide which, while allowing appeal of the respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ''LIC ''), the order dated 07.01.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Godavari District in complaint no. 12/2007, allowing the said complaint, was modified and the LIC was directed to make payment, in question, treating it as a case, where the nominee had not given any option.
BRIEF facts of the case are that late Ramesh Kumar Jain took Jeevan Suraksha Endowment Funding Policy with guaranteed addition for an assured sum of Rs.2 lakh. The complainant no. 1 is the wife of Ramesh Kumar Jain and complainant nos. 2 to 4 are his children. Ramesh Kumar Jain died on 08.08.2005. When the claim form was given to the LIC, the LIC took the stand that the complainants were not entitled to get the whole claim in lump-sum, as demanded by them. The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum demanding payment of Rs.2 lakh as sum assured, along with a bonus of Rs.75,000/- till filing of the complaint and a further bonus of Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. In this way, they demanded a total sum of Rs.3.25 lakh from the OP. The District Forum vide their order dated 07.01.2008, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh along with Rs.75,000/- as guaranteed addition with interest @12% p.a. from 1.1.2006 till the date of payment and Rs.5,000/- by way of damages and Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation. The District Forum made the observations that the terms and conditions printed on the policy bond could not be read or understood, as they were in microscopic printing. An appeal against this order was filed by the OP before the State Commission which was accepted with the State Commission observing that complainants should give the necessary option as required under the terms and conditions of the policy within one month from the date of receipt of their order and on failure to give option, the LIC was directed to make payment, treating it as a case where the nominee had not given any option. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was a minor delay of 31 days in filing the said petition, because the copy of the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 was received by them on 17.1.2011. It took some time for petitioner No. 1 to consult the local Advocate, as she has to manage the house-hold affairs as well. The other complainants are too young to manage this kind of affair. It also required some time to arrange the basic funds for presenting the present petition.
IN view of the position explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay of 31 days in filing the present petition is ordered to be condoned.
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further drawn our attention to the copy of the policy in question, saying that the policy was in microscopic print and hence, it was not possible to read the same to have knowledge about the terms and conditions, governing the policy. The learned counsel referred to the observations of the District Forum in their order, in which the said forum has observed that they could not make out even a single word about the conditions specified in the policy, as the policy was in microscopic print and hence was not legible or understandable. The learned District Forum held it to be a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP, because they were guilty of not furnishing the conditions in a legible manner and for not educating the policy-holder on such terms and conditions. On the other hand, learned counsel for the LIC stated that although, the terms and conditions printed on the front page of the policy were in microscopic print, but conditions and privileges were printed on the last page of the policy which could be read without any difficulty. As per paragraph 12, entitled Special Conditions, options were required to be exercised for the payment of annuity. The learned counsel, however, admitted that these Special Conditions were required to be applied in conjunction with the term and conditions on the main page of the policy.
WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
THE State Commission have observed in the impugned order as follows:- "8. It is an undisputed fact that deceased late Ramesh Kumar Jain had taken Jeevan Suraksha Endowment Funding Policy with guaranteed additions for sum assured of Rs.2 lakh vide Ex. A1 covering the period from 23.08.2000 to 23.09.2019. The assured died on 8.8.2005. No doubt the terms of the policy are in fine print. However, it cannot be said that it is undecipherable. Clause-6(1)(a) of the terms reads as follows: If the proposer dies before the date on which annuity vests and while the policy is in force the following benefits shall become payable. In case, the spouse named in the proposal is alive on the date of death of the proposer, then basic sum assured together with accrued guaranteed additions will be utilised to purchase annuity to the spouse and the spouse will have the option I, II and IV detailed in the special conditions. The annuity will be payable to the spouse from the first of the month following the month of the death of the proposer and every month thereafter as per selected option. This spouse will have an option to receive 25% of the sum assured (basic sum assured and accrued guaranteed additions, if any) in lump sum and the balance in annuity. In case the spouse is not named in the proposal, the basic sum assured with guaranteed additions, if any, will be payable in lump sum to the nominee or legal heirs. "
It is made out from the above terms and conditions read with para 12, "Special Conditions " that in the present case, since the spouse was alive on the date of death of the proposer, she was entitled to receive 25% of the sum assured (basic sum assured and accrued guaranteed additions) in lump sum and the balance amount is to be received by her in annuity. As per para 12 of the special conditions, she was supposed to exercise her option to receive the balance in annuity; as per one of the options mentioned in para 12 special conditions. The State Commission have rightly relied upon the judgement of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in the case of "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Harchand Rai Chandan Lal " as reported in [IV (2004) CPJ 15 (NC)] saying that the policy is a contract between the two parties and both the parties are bound by the terms of the said contract. The State Commission also allowed the present petitioner time of one month to exercise her option and in case, the option was not exercised, the Insurance Company was directed to make payment, treating it as a case, where the nominee had not given any option.
IT is observed, therefore, that the order of the State Commission has been passed by making a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record. The petitioner is not entitled to receive the entire money in lump sum, looking at the terms and conditions of the policy, in question. It is held, therefore, that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is ordered to be upheld and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.