BRANCH MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION CIVIL LINES Vs. SUNIL KUMAR PALIWAL S/O LATE SH CHETRAM PALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the opposite party against the order dated 9.3.2009 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal ('State Commission' for short) thereby dismissing the first appeal No.1372 of 2008 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner/opposite party had filed the first appeal before the State Commission against the order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narsinghpur ('District Forum' for short) in complaint No.47 of 2006 whereby the District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant directing the petitioner to pay the sum assured as per the conditions of the policy along with compensation of Rs.10,000/ - and cost of Rs.1,000/ -.

(2.) THE factual matrix of this case are that the respondent / complainant, Sunil Kumar Paliwal, had taken two "Jeevan Kishor" policies for his son and daughter bearing Nos. 3706336541 and 3706336544 for the period from 28.3.1994 to 28.3.2012 and 28.3.1994 to 29.3.2010 respectively. For the above policies, the prescribed annual premium was Rs.1233/ - and Rs.2811/ - respectively which the respondent was depositing every year and he also got receipts of the same with next date of payment being mentioned on such receipts issued by the petitioner. After about 12 years of issuance of the policies, it was intimated by the petitioner that during an audit conducted in the office of the petitioner Corporation, it was found that the premium on the two policies in question should have been paid half yearly by the respondent but because of a typographical error, the premium payable was inadvertently mentioned as annual because of which, the respondent kept on paying the premium on the two policies annually. This had resulted in short recovery of premium on the two policies and hence the petitioner informed the respondent vide its letter dated 20.5.2006 about the typographical error and requested him to make payment of the 12 year difference of Rs.14,796/ - and Rs.33,732/ - on account of the premium while the petitioner waived the late fee keeping in view the circumstances of the case. Aggrieved by this action on the part of the petitioner and treating the demand for additional payment of premium as breach of the contract between the two parties, the respondent lodged a complaint with the District Consumer Forum praying for issuing directions to the petitioner Corporation to comply with the terms of contract of the two policies and also declaring that the petitioner has no right to go against the conditions of the contract after 12 years of the issuance of the policies and changing the premium amount from annual to half yearly payments. As stated above, the District Forum vide its order dated 20.3.2008 accepted the complaint in terms of the following order: -

(3.) THE aforesaid order of the District Forum was confirmed by the State Commission vide its impugned order while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the same.