AHMEDABAD - Gbic.co.in

The Complainant stated that she had put her signature in the proposal formare not her but forged signature. She also stated that the product was misssold to her by giving three different illustrations.This forum observed that it is difficult to establish whether, signatures ofthe complainant on a document are genuine or forged. It is also difficult toestablish that the agent had shown different illustration and sold theproduct.The Complainant is deemed as beyond jurisdiction for this forum.The complaint thus stand dissolved.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No.22-001-0394-10Mr.Rakeshchandra C. Goyal V/s. LIC of IndiaAward Dated 31-03-2010Dispute regarding Premium payable in terms of the policyThe Complainant had taken Life Insurance Policy with quarterly premium ofRs.4410/- which included Cl.VII health extra premium also.Inspection team of the Respondent raised a query that Cl.VII health extrawas charged as Rs.4.01 instead of correct Rs.40.10 (10 times of basic extra),so quarterly premium should be Rs.6,215/- and not Rs.4,410/-.The Respondent conveyed this revised premium to the Complainant whichwas not acceptable to him and he pleaded that instead of charging theincreased premium the Respondent should charge the premium which ismentioned in first premium receipt and policy bond.This forum observed that the Respondent had short charged extra premiumdue to computer mistake and consequently on pointing out by their internalinspection team brought this fact to the notice of the complainant. TheComplainant’s disagreement to revised premium is tantamount to takebenefit from a genuine mistake.In the result, the complaint fails to succeed.