Two queries on LIC Policy: Jeevan Suraksha [Plan 122 – E]

POSTED BY jnmdeep31 ON September 22, 2014 5:12 pm COMMENTS (7)

Date of commencement : 03/03/2000

Date of vesting                  : 03/03/2013

Date of 1st Pension           : 03/04/2013

Q1: As per Policy Bond Pension Amount per month Rs.2533.00[under option:Without Commutation].

        Through Option Form [dated 26/02/2013] LICI is reducing this amount to Rs.2338.00 [-7.7%].

        We appealed through RTI for justification. LICI is stating that some error was there in their

        Initial calculation. As per Incontestablity clause [of 2 years] no arbitrary amendment of terms of

        Policy Bond is  valid.

Q2. Loyalty Addition: On RTI appeal LICI stated that in 09/2012 no LA was declared. Initially LICI

       Agent stated that around 5% of Sum Assure would be considered for LA and Pension Amount

       would be enhanced accordingly. His statement was based on the then accounting policy on

       distribution of surplus amount. It appears that LICI has changed their distribution of surplus

       amount in 2010 [Not less than 95% of the surplus would go to stake holders of Participating

       Policies]. Though LICI generated a lot of surplus, Plan 122 [Nonparticipating Policy] got no LA.

Kindly provide your valued suggestion.

7 replies on this article “Two queries on LIC Policy: Jeevan Suraksha [Plan 122 – E]”

  1. jnmdeep31 says:

    OK. Please provide me further information on this.
    Pl. ref. to “Times of India, Kolkata Dt.22/09/2014 instead of Dt.22/04/2014” or Section 45 of the Insurance Act.

  2. jnmdeep31 says:

    From N Mukhopadhyay:
    Vide reference “Life Insurance seek clarity on Indian mgmt clause” – The Times Of India, Kolkata dated 22/09/2014 : ” …. on Section 45 of the Insurance Act, which says that no policy can be called into question on the grounds of mis-statement after two years…….”

    1. Its only for small points , not major points .. you cant hide being a smoker !

      1. jnmdeep31 says:

        Dear Manish: Your answer is not transparent. In my view, after 2 years incontestability clause is applicable and hence any unilateral amendment to the terms of the contract/policy is clear violation by insurer. The policy can not be called into question.

        1. From what I know , its applicable only for non-material points . Like address mismatch , name wrongly given and those kind of immaterial info ..

          If some material info is wrongly given which impact the premium , then it does not come under this clause

          1. jnmdeep31 says:

            Thanks. However, sorry to differ:
            Point 1: After 2 years, the incontestable clause prevents the insurer from cancelling the contract even for a material misrepresentation.

            Point 2: LIC can’t make consumer pay for its mistake: NCDRC – even for typographical mistake [08/07/2012…]

            …. Now Life Insurance Council wants that in case of suspected fraud, regulations should allow for policies to be called inti question up to three years [Ref: “Times of India, Kolkata Dt.22/04/2014].

            1. Ok , I think I need to find more on this now .. thanks for sharing that !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Download Our FREE Ebook!

Available only for first 100 people today

Download Our FREE Ebook!

Available only for first 100 people today