Dismissed

The Manager LIC of India v. Office of Insurance Ombudsman

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2023WP/4766/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner LIC challenged an Ombudsman award ordering payment of a full maturity sum where the insurer alleged a typographical error. The court held the insurer barred from challenging terms post-maturity without prior notice to correct the amount.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, upholding the Ombudsman's direction for the insurer to pay the full maturity benefit.

The Manager LIC of India Vs Office of Insurance… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32931 WP No. 4766 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4766 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, MYSORE BANGALORE ROAD, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSORE-570015 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. BHIMASENA RAO, MANAGER (L AND HPF) DIVISIONAL OFFICE-I, BANGALORE. (BY SRI. ROHITH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

OFFICE OF INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN NO.19/19, JEEVANSOUDHA BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, 24^TH MAIN, J.P NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078 REPRESENTED BY SRI.M.PARSHAD, INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, KARNATAKA STATE EMAIL: ombudsman.bengaluru.gbic.co.in

¶12

SATHYANARAYANA S DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN PVT. LTD., E-5, NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR POST, MYSURU-575003

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:32931 WP No. 4766 of 2016

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. NANDA KISHORE J., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. HEMANTH P., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD BEARING NO.BNG/LI/A/0138/2015-16 DATED 27.11.2015 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN PROCEEDINGS COMPLAINT REFERENCE NO.BNG-L029-1516-0665 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged an award bearing No.BNG/L1/A/0138/2015-16 passed by the respondent No.1 dated 27.11.2015.

¶20

The respondent No.2 is the life assured who had availed a ‘LIC’s Jeevan Saral’ policy (‘policy’ for brevity) for a term of 10 years and the policy commenced from 28.03.2005 and was paying monthly premium of Rs.818/-.

¶21

The sum assured was Rs.98,160/- as per the policy of insurance. The respondent No.2 had paid all the premiums in time and outlived the policy term. On maturity of the

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32931 WP No. 4766 of 2016

¶23

policy, the petitioner released a sum of Rs.55,082/- being the maturity value. The respondent No.2 aggrieved by the payment of reduced maturity value, initiated proceedings before the respondent No.1 for recovery of balance amount of Rs.43,078/-. Respondent No.1 after hearing the petitioner, held that the policy of insurance issued by the petitioner clearly indicates that the maturity value of the policy was Rs.98,160/- and what was paid to the petitioner was a sum of Rs.55,082/-. It rejected the contention of the petitioner herein that the maturity value shown in the policy of insurance was a typographical error as the petitioner herein did not take any steps to correct it till the policy had matured. Consequently, the respondent No.1 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner herein to pay the full maturity benefit to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the award.

¶24

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:32931 WP No. 4766 of 2016

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶28

that as per the scheme called ‘Jeevan Saral’, the petitioner was only entitled to a sum of Rs.55,082/- on maturity and the same was credited into his account and what was mentioned in the policy as Rs.98,160/was a typographical error. He submitted that soon after the maturity of the policy, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.55,082/- to the respondent No.2. Learned counsel took the Court through the insurance policy and the terms and conditions and contended that the maturity value was only a sum of Rs.55,082/- and not beyond and therefore, the impugned award passed by the respondent No.1 warrants interference.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand, submitted that the policy of insurance clearly sets out that on its maturity, the respondent No.2 would be guaranteed a sum of Rs.98,160/-. She submitted that any correction in the policy must have been informed to the respondent No.2 at the earliest as that would have

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:32931 WP No. 4766 of 2016

¶31

enabled the respondent No.2 to decide whether to continue the policy or not. She submitted that the petitioner could not challenge the terms of insurance by claiming that what was mentioned in the policy of insurance as the maturity value of insurance was Rs.55,082/and Rs.98,160/mentioned was a typographical error. He submitted that no steps were taken by the petitioner to correct the same till the policy had matured for payment.

¶32

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶33

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶34

A contract of insurance is a solemn agreement

¶35

between the insurer and the insured, where the terms and conditions are set in stone. As noticed by the respondent No.1, the petitioner had assured the respondent No.2 that on the maturity of the policy in question, the respondent No.2 would be paid a sum of Rs.98,160/-. The respondent No.2, on that assurance, had paid premium for 10 years

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:32931 WP No. 4766 of 2016

¶37

and on the maturity of the policy, the petitioner instead of paying a sum of Rs.98,160/-, had released a sum of Rs.55,082/- claiming it to be the maturity value. The petitioner did not take any steps of whatsoever nature, from the date of the policy till the date it matured for payment, if the maturity amount mentioned on the face of the policy, was a typographical error. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now turn around and claim that what was mentioned in the policy was a typographical mistake.

¶38

In that view of the matter, the petition lacks

¶39

merit and is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

SMA

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

The Manager LIC of India v. Office of Insurance Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager LIC of India v. Office of Insurance Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha Pinto Vs Rev. Dr. G. Andrew Richard

Sri Devaraju Vs the State by Hassan Women Police Station

Britannia Industries Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.S.L.Vijayashree Vs Sri.S.Puttaiah

Sri N B Veerabhadraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs the District Registrar and the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps