Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) IPO Message Board (Page 86)

It looks Russia won't let LIC IPO sail.

Absolutely correct.

Amit ji
Add more MOL ..
What you think about kellontec

One should refrain un relevant un warranted post in ipo it seems

It seems.

Out of the topic but I am sending a copy of an important judgement for general awareness of people.




Supreme Court of India
D. Srinivas vs Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd on 16 February, 2018
Author: S A Nazeer





IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2216 OF 2018
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14021 of 2017]


D. SRINIVAS … APPELLANT

VERSUS


SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS



JUDGMENT
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, the appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the order dated 03.02.2017 in First Appeal No.560/2012, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the National Commission’) whereby the National Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent herein and rejected the complaint of the appellant.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.02.16 16:05:23 IST Reason:

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant along with his wife, Smt. D. Suguna and son Mr. D. Venugopal obtained housing loan of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs) in the month of September, 2008 from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for construction of a house in Hyderabad. On 29.09.2008, a sum of Rs.78,150/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand one hundred fifty) was debited from their loan account towards SBI Life Insurance Cover under Group Insurance Scheme for home loan borrowers, through master policy holder i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad, covering the Life of Mr. D. Venugopal, who was one of the joint loanees. The proposal form dated 29.09.2008 was accompanied by good health declaration by the insured. D. Venugopal expired on 17.12.2009 due to a massive heart attack. Consequently, the said life insurance obtained in his name came into force, obligating the insurer, the first respondent herein, to pay the outstanding amount in their loan account. The appellant approached the insurer and the bank informing them about the demise of D. Venugopal and requested them to settle the insurance claim and to discharge the outstanding loan amount in their house loan account. Since the insurer did not accede to his request, he filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission.

4. The insurer contested the complaint mainly on the ground that the proposal for the policy was not accepted as the insured did not present himself for medical examination in spite of repeated requests made by the insurer. It was asserted that the amount of premium of Rs.78,150/- was refunded by cheque dated 10.12.2008 to the State Bank of Hyderabad. Thus, the insurer pleaded no deficiency in service and denied its liability in connection with the payment to the insured.

5. The State Commission allowed the complaint by its order dated 16.07.2012. However, the National Commission, by majority, allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the insurance policy was taken in the name of D. Venugopal in terms of the Insurance Scheme. The proposal was sent along with the premium of Rs.78,150/- on 29.9.2008. Admittedly, the insurance company has received the premium on 13.10.2008. D. Venugopal died on 17.12.2009. This was intimated to the State Bank of Hyderabad on 3.4.2010. Thereafter, several letters were sent to the bank for discharge of the loan amount in terms of the insurance policy. The deceased - D. Venugopal was never called for medical examination. It was only on 18.1.2011 the insurance company had called for medical examination for coverage of life insurance of the deceased and, therefore, the policy could not be completed pending examination and that the proposal was returned. It is clear that there was presumption of acceptance of the proposal in favour of the deceased as the proposal form along with good health declaration form was accepted by the bank and sent to the insurance company and the premium was debited by the bank from his loan account. Neither the appellant nor the deceased were intimated by the respondents to appear for medical examination. They did not receive any intimation from the respondents that the policy has not been issued even though he continued to remain alive for more than 1 year 3 months. The premium was refunded only after the appellant insisted for clearance of dues vide cheque dated 23.2.2011, nearly 2½ years after the death of the insured. In this view of the matter, the majority view of the National Commission is clearly unsustainable.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is no concluded contract between the parties. Therefore, the insurer is not bound to discharge loan merely on the ground of receipt of premium for issuing policy. The deceased did not appear for medical examination. Therefore, the policy could not be completed on receipt of the death intimation. The premium amount has been refunded. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the appellant, his wife and his son D. Venugopal had obtained a housing loan of Rs. 30 lacs from the bank in the month of September, 2008 for the construction of the house. A sum of Rs. 78,150/- was debited from their loan account towards life insurance cover, covering the life of D. Venugopal, who was one of the joint loanees. The proposal form dated 29.09.2008 was also accompanied by good health declaration by the insured. The insurance company received the premium on 13.10.2008. D. Venugopal died on 17.12.2008. This was intimated to the bank on 13.4.2010. A notice dated 14.5.2010 was issued to the bank to settle the loan account. However, the bank did not send any reply to this notice. For the first time on 18.1.2011 the bank sent a reply stating that the insurance company vide reference No.15365 dated 17.10.2008 had called for medical examination for coverage of life insurance of D. Venugopal in respect of the housing loan in question. It was also informed that a communication was sent on 16.12.2008 regarding refund of the proposal amount as the insurance policy could not be completed pending medical examination and the proposal was rejected. The appellant submitted a reply dated 25.2.2011 stating that at no point of time any letter from the insurance company was received calling for medical examination nor did they receive any amount under cheque dated 10.2.2008 said to have been issued. Neither the bank nor the insurance company had ever informed the proposer or the appellant herein about the non-issuance of policy for want of medical certificate though they have alleged that they have intimated the said fact. The letter dated 17.10.2008 was not sent to the appellant herein.

9. From the scheme it is clear that in the case of joint housing loan the full loan amount will be insured even if the policy is issued in the name of only one loanee. In this case, the insured was D. Venugopal son of the appellant, whereas the loan is the joint loan in the name of the appellant, his son - the insured and wife of the appellant. The insured had signed a declaration which is as under:

Good Health Declaration:
“I declare that I am in sound health, do not have any physical defect/deformity, perform my routine activities independently and, that I have never suffered or have been suffering, or have been hospitalized for any critical illness @ or a condition requiring medical treatment for a critical illness as on date.”
10. In cases of loan amount exceeding Rs.7.5 lacs, the provision in the policy is as under:

Where the loan Amount Exceeds Rs.7.5 Lacs “As I am willing to join for life insurance cover from SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. subject to my under-going the medical examination and satisfying the health underwriting criteria of the Company, I authorise the Bank to debit my account for the standard gross premium plus any additional premium that may be required by SBI Life based on medical underwriting. I also note that in the event of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. not being in a position to accept my life insurance for any reason whatsoever, the initial premium amount remitted by the Bank would be refunded and credited back to my account.”
11. It is clear from the above that the proposer was willing to join the life insurance coverage from the respondent insurance company subject to his undertaking medical examination and for his willingness he authorized the bank to debit his account for payment of the premium. This clearly implies that medical examination was to take place prior to the premium being debited from the bank account of the proposer. The specific condition in the policy is that in case the loan amount exceeds Rs.7.5 lacs the medical examination was compulsory. If the medical examination was compulsory for such cases it should have been done along with filing of the proposal form before the payment of the premium. If the proposal was not accepted for any reason the premium would have been credited to the account of the proposer. The premium has been refunded after 23.2.2011. From this, it is clear that the insurance company had not rejected the proposal before 23.2.2011.
12. Our attention has been drawn to the case of LIC v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 719, wherein this Court has clearly stated that the acceptance of an insurance contract may not be completed by mere retention of the premium or preparation of the policy document rather the acceptance must be signified by some act or acts agreed on by the parties or from which the law raises a presumption of acceptance.

13. Although we do not have any quarrel with the proposition laid therein, it should be noted that aforesaid judgments only laid down a flexible formula for the court to see as to whether there was clear indication of acceptance of the insurance. It is to be noted that the impugned majority order merely cites the aforesaid judgment, without appreciating the circumstances which give rise to a very clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by the insurer in this case at hand. The insurance contract being a contract of utmost good faith, is a two-way door. The standards of conduct as expected under the utmost good faith obligation should be met by either party to such contract.

14. From the aforesaid clause it may be seen that the condition precedent for acceptance of the premium was the medical examination. It would be logical for an underwriter to accept the premium based on the medical examination and not otherwise. Therefore, by the very fact that they accepted the premium waived the condition precedent of medical examination.

15. It is an admitted fact that the premium was paid on 29.09.2008. That it was only in 18.01.2011 that the respondent insurance company informed the appellant that the policy was not accepted by them. We are unable to fathom the reason for such excessive delay in informing the appellant, which cannot be excused. We are of the opinion that the rejection of the policy must be made in a reasonable time so as to be fair and in consonance with the good faith standards. In this case, we cannot hold that such enormous delay was reasonable. Moreover, it is borne from the records that the premium was only re-paid on 24.02.2011, after a delay of more than one year five months. If we consider above aspects, it can be reasonably concluded that the insurer is only trying to get out of the bargain, which they had willfully accepted. From the aforesaid circumstances we can easily conclude that the policy was accepted by the insurer.

16. In the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that there was no complete contract. There is clear presumption of the acceptance of the proposal in favour of the proposer. Therefore, the majority view of the Commission would not sustain.

17. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order of the National Commission dated 22.11.2016 is hereby set aside and the order of the State Commission dated 16.7.2012 is restored.

18. There shall be no orders as to costs.

……………………..…J.

(N.V. RAMANA) …………………..……J.

(S. ABDUL NAZEER) New Delhi;

February 16, 2018.

@Asoke Sir,
Kindly reveal the implied meaning of the post.
Many thanks in advance. 🙏

@k atar.ji it is surely not related to ipo , asoke ji please refrain these posts in these ipo pages many don't like.
I am open to learning so i didn't get offended with this.

i am not against IPO , each and every ipo main apply karta hu lagh bagh ....
par kuch baatein hain jo ander ander se choob rahi hain LIC ipo ke releated man main....

1) government almost selling psu to get money (privatization other company )
2) LIC issue can expect 60000-90000 cr between..
IPO hain toah agar public paisa lagayegi tabhi toah goverment ko paisa milega..
agar main direct-indirect baat karu toah saara paisa public kaa hee paisa government lene wali hain.... (QIB-HNI-RETAIL,anchor invertor)
dhan se sunna meri baat public kaa paisa hee government lee rahi hain lic ipo main ...

3) agar public ka paisa lee rahi hain governemt IPO se toah DRHP-RHP main jarua likhna chhai ki ipo ka paisa governemt kaha use karne wali hain saara ofs kuch toah fresh issue kardo, sabko apna maal bechna hain or paise lene hain bas .... jab aap company ke share holder banne jaa rahe ho toah aapko jarur pata hona chaai ki aap jo paisa LIC ipo main invest karne jaa rahe ho voah paisa kaha jane wale hain yaa fir kaha use hone wala hain ,,,,,
100% offer for sale hain,,, jaha tak meri information ke kutabik agar koi ipo 100% ofs hota hain toah listing gain ki jyada unmid nahi hoti hain


4) ek baat conform hain ki paytm-car trade jaisa nahi haal hoga kitna bhi higher valuation rakh le because LIC is big brand from many years

5)jab public se ipo main paisa raise ho raha hain toah mere khayal se minimum 10-15 % discount hona chai for all retail investor taaki unka confidence or badh jaaye,
agar maan toah galti se market kharab hua or discount pe list hoa toah public hee kahegi ki yaar kuch nahi mila ,,,,,,,,,,,

6)sarkari company hain toah kuch toah inestors ko benefit milna chhai,,,, allotment mil bhi jaaye sabko par listing gain milega ki nahi kisi se pass jawab nahi hoga shayad...

and everyone sorry in advance agar kisi ko boora laga ho toah related LIC IPO ...
ho sakta hain main galat hu jo haaa par itna jajrur kah sakta hu itna bhi galat nahi ho sakta 100 % kuch kuch baatein bilkil sahi hain ,,,,

Abhi to issue open nhi hua secondary market ki band baja di.. jab open hoga pta nhi kya rang laayega ye LIC IPO
All holding going down day by day
GR infra Clean Science AWL Tatva MTR Nazara ETC..
TCS 80 liye 3839 mein wo bhi Down gaya..

Sebi gives approval for api holdings ltd, pharmeazy, cmr green technologies ltd.

Paytm to other IPO: Hume bhi pele gaye the tum bhi pele jaoge.
2022 will have lowest number of IPO in last three years.
Only Companies with good fundamental and decent valuation will be entertained.

@venturestack
Give some good quality small cap stock names for investment purpose.

Dear experts,
I need a clarification on TCS buyback.
If I have one qty as on record date and I buy later on but before tender windows 43 qty then will I be eligible to tender 44 qty in the buyback?
Or if I sell after record date and buy later on then will those qty eligible to be tendered in buyback?
Kindly clarify🙏🙏

Chheda ji,
2016 2020
LIC. 71.8% 64.1%
SBI Life 5% 8%
HDFC life, ICICI pru must have definitely gained market share too.
You are underestimating SBI branch network and I have personally experienced how they are aggressively using branch for Insurance and Card penetration.
I will talk only with data and you can also verify past data who is eating whose market share.
Disclaimer: I am neither LIC nor SBI Life customer.

@jethro lala

U r right sir.👍

Lic IPO may open next month but demat account don't seem to be growing in that fashion. (Given reservation for 28 crore policy holders)
Active broking clients as on Jan 31, 2022
Total active accounts      3,33,63,931
      
Broker name      accounts
Zerodha Broking       59,41,369
Upstox      48,78,842
Nextbillion Technology       33,24,610
Angel One       32,89,525
Icici Securities       28,69,732
5Paisa Capital       15,79,931
Kotak Securities       11,53,654
Hdfc Securities       10,79,879
Iifl Securities       9,84,166
Motilal Oswal      8,12,506
Sharekhan       7,68,631
Sbicap Securities       5,21,677
Axis Securities       3,91,816
Paytm Money       3,42,802
Fno India Securities       2,46,232
Geojit Financial Services       2,34,897
Choice Equity Broking       1,94,395
Edelweiss Broking       1,86,157
Religare Broking       1,65,478
Smc Global Securities       1,59,608
Alice Blue Fin Svcs P       1,50,029
Nirmal Bang Securities .       1,32,897
Marwadi Shares      1,26,494
Ventura Securities       1,21,005
Finwizard Technology       1,14,852
Reliance Securities       1,10,357
Fyers Securities       1,08,718
Anand Rathi      1,04,447
Jainam Share Consultants       88,773
Samco Securities       79,737
Tradebulls Securities       72,831
Nj India Invest       70,376
Profitmart Securities       69,639
Swastika Investmart       68,075
Aditya Birla Money       66,560
Bajaj Financial Securities       66,232
Idbi Capital      63,670
Monarch Networth Capital       59,023
Dhani Stocks       58,757
Jm Financial Services       56,534
Shcil Services       55,849
Master Capital Services       54,599
Bonanza Portfolio       50,888
Globe Capital Market       46,540
Jhaveri Securities       45,978
Sushil Financial Services       44,833
Integrated Enterprises       44,678
Vns Finance & Capital Services       44,515
Arihant Capital Markets       42,146
Prabhudas Lilladher .       39,191
Suresh Rathi Securities       37,352
Goodwill Wealth Management       35,437
Shah Investors Home       34,738
Shri Parasram Holdings .       34,627
Lkp Securities       33,924
Astha Credit & Securities       33,389
Acml Capital Markets       29,145
Way2Wealth Brokers       28,991
Shriram Insight Share Brokers       28,492
Econo Broking       27,385
Yes Securities       26,917
Kifs Trade Capital       23,025
Asit C Mehta Investment Interrmediates       23,009
South Asian Stocks       21,462
Finvasia Securities       21,385
Prudent Broking Services       21,118
Navia Markets       20,366
Moneywise Finvest       20,344
Canara Bank Securities       20,129

If policy holder will not interested then it will become fuski bomb.

Is rail ka kya karna hai?

LIC IPO Bid Start Date      10 March 2022
Last Date to bid      14 March 2022
Minimum Investment for LIC IPO      14,700 INR
LIC IPO Size      1,00,000 Crore

LIC IPO Price Band      2,000 INR To 2,100 INR
QIB Quota      50%
Retail Investors Quota      35%
LIC IPO Allotment Date      By 25 March 2022
LIC IPO Share Price Face Value      Rs 10/-

Total issued share of LIC: ~632.5 crore
If issue price is 2100 then valuation at issue price is ~13,28,250 crores
Government wants to sell 5% stake then IPO size should be ~66,500 crores.
All figures are rounded off so slight variations may be from exact calculation.
Correct me if I am wrong with my calculation.

Soon after listing Lic likely to be split into 5:1 with rs 2 face value

Many so called IPO experts will say LIC should not be compared with listed peers, it is a great company, market leader, etc.,

Show me One PSU stock which is trading at premium valuations except IRCTC.
Even IRCTC is trading around 100x PE only. So with Rs.5 EPS, 100x will workout to 500 per share. even if i give 200x of forward expected earnings to be 10 eps,
THE fully priced value will be 2000.

Why should an investor buy a stock above 2100 which is already priced in Fully priced in of forward projected earnings.

This is a complete Joke by GOVT to sell their stake buy stealing 70000 cr Public money. Like how PAYTM stole 18000cr from public.

Fundamentals, monopoly, future & past performance etc these things work on listed companies. IPO purely based on demand & supply. If subscription figure will good then it will list on premium.
Personal opinion :)

Bahut sare Achhe stocks available hai to iss IPO me risk kyo le.
Waiting for another IPO.. Avoid.

Lets wait for all the details of LIC IPO Offer
its too early to predict and to compare with other IPOs like paytm and cartrade
I don't know how GMP is decided without knowing offer price
however its the biggest IPO, so there will be liquidity crunch and market may go down

Very expensive ipo if it comes above 800

How ?
Can you please explain ?
Ya avi comment kar rahe ho.

@eagleye
It is interesting to understand why market value should be higher than embeded value in first place. It is the quality of business which makes embeded value in first place which is captured by concept called "Value of new business". Embeded value is some thing like book value and enhancement every year comes from "Value of new Business"
Do market cap ratio to Value of new Business and then you may appreciate that LIC is way expensive compared to existing insurance stock
In short ratio market cap to embeded value has no rationale in my view
2ndly given availability of large stock float (20% more stock to come in next 5 years) makes it non attractive unless IPO is priced attractively. As of now circulated band of Rs 2000 to 2100 is too costly by valuation mathematics

Next Car trade & paytm. Better to buy Hdfc life & Icici pru at current levels

*LIC IPO*

*Comparison with Peer Group*

HDFC Life | CMP = 589.75 | No. of Shares = 2,11,18,13,255 | MCap = 1,24,544Crs. | Embedded Value = 29,543Crs. | MCap / EV = *4.216*


SBI Life | CMP = 1,147.05 | No. of Shares = 1,00,02,83,298 | MCap = 1,14,737Crs. | Embedded Value = 35,290Crs. | MCap / EV = *3.251*


ICICI Life | CMP = 525.50 | No. of Shares = 1,43,73,01,101 | MCap = 75,530Crs. | Embedded Value = 30,203Crs. | MCap / EV = *2.501*


And,
*LIC IPO | Issue Price = 2,100.00 (Tentative) | No. of Shares = 6,32,49,97,701 | MCap = 13,28,250Crs. | Embedded Value = 5,39,686Crs. | MCap / EV =* *2.461*

Thanks @RJ Rocks
for quickly letting other know about similar ID to our valuable Chem Cho sir

We all respects your study. No one can challenge you. If you will apply this IPO then our confidance will be high. Pl it is not necessary to answer right now. Whenever I mean in March when you apply this ipo pl post . So that we can make our mind. Thanks in advance. Pl ignore ir relevant comments.

Another PAYTM in the Making.
in PAYTM story it dragged their investors alone down.
This time LIC IPO will drag the Entire market with it & drown.

BETTER Avoid.

Clearly saying.
Avoid LIC ipo.
Dont buy now.

Buy in three digits later after lisitng.

Do not view LIC IPO with suspicion and pessimism.
1. Let them announce the price band
2. Let us wait and see the Anchor names and demand
3. Let us wait for reputed Analysts and Brokerage/media consensus opinion.
4. The then prevailing short term market sentiment.
5. QIBs and NIIs interest on last day
Let us patiently wait till then. Let every investor take his own decision based on his own research.