BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  MANGALORE

Dated this the 5^th April 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI                   : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.300/2015

(Admitted on 29.8.2015)           

Smt. Rohini,

W/o Late. M. Vishwanatha,

Aged about 32 years,

Mujur House, Aithur village,

Sunkadakatte,

Puttur Taluk, D.K.

                                                                 ……… Complainant

(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. SD)                                                                                                   

VERSUS

1. Post Master General (RPLI),

S.K. Region, 2^nd floor,

GPO Building, Bangalore 01.

2. Post Master ,

Sunkadakatte Post Office,

Puttur Taluk, D.K.

                                                     …. Opposite Parties

 (Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 and 2. Sri.UA)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI

1.  This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

          The complainant’s husband had taken Rural Postal Life Insurance Policies No.719921, 719932,719939 and 729589 for Rs.50,000/  each from 30.3.2011 by paying a monthly premium of Rs.268 to the Opposite Parties.  The premium was paid at the 1^st Opposite Party and 2^nd Opposite Party has issued receipts for the same.  The policy was for 7 years premium paid up to March 2013. The complainant husband died on 15.10.2013 due to sever ill health at his house and he was not keeping well since May 2013.  After the death of the complainant husband she has filed claim petition to the 1^st Opposite Party along with original policies and original pass books.  Hence all the claim documents are with the 1^st Opposite Party and the policies and pass book are not with the complainant.  There after the complainant has received repudiation letter dated 20.5.2014 from the 1^st Opposite Party stating that the policies were lapsed due to non payment of premium from 4/2013 to 10/2013 hence claim cannot be admitted.  Hence the complainant got issued regd. lawyers notices dated 9.2.2015 to the Opposite Parties and the notices was served on the 2^nd Opposite Party on 21.2.2015 and 1^st Opposite Party issued reply dated 25.2.2015 but not complied the averments of the notice. Hence the above complaint filed by the complainant before this forum under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986(here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Fora to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/ to the complainant with 12% interest from 15.10.2013 till payment, to pay Rs.30,000/ and to pay Rs.20,000/ towards expenses and such other reliefs.

II. Version Notice served to the opposite parties by RPAD, inspite of receiving notice the Opposite Party No.1 neither appeared nor contested the case. Opposite Party No.2 filed version stating that the Opposite Party submits that, Sri. M. Vishwanatha had secured rural Postal Life insurance from Opposite Party No.2 as per policy No.RKT SK EA719921, 719932,719939, accepted on 22.2.20111 and another policy bearing No.RKT SK EA729539 was accepted on 2.3.211.  the said policy is for Rs.25,000/ each.  The policy holder/ insured was required to pay Rs.268/ each towards the monthly premium.  That, admittedly the insured had paid the premium only up to March 2013 there afterwards he had discontinued the payment of monthly premium and consequently allowed the policies to be lapse.  This facts if clearly admitted by the complainant in para No.4 of the complaint itself.  However, a false contention is raised before this Forum stating that, The above policies are life insurance policies and cannot be repudiated for non payment of premium.  Hence, repudiation of the complainant claim by the 1^st Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service.  The said assertion made by the complainant will not hold any water. The said policies held by the insured are lapsed on account of non payment of premiums due as per Rule 56(2)(b)(iv) of Post office life insurance Rules 2011.  The policies aforesaid are accordingly become void  hence, the claim was legally rejected for non payment of premium for the month of April 2013 to October 2013.  The aforesaid information was every well within the knowledge of the complainant which was communicated to her by the Opposite Party as per he letter vide post master general (RPLI) Bangalore letter no.SK/RPLI/DC 62, 63,64,65 dated 20.5.2014.   That inspite of the same the complainant here in had got addressed a lawyers notice dated 9.2.2015 and the Opposite Party has replied the said legal notice as per the reply letter dated 25.2.2015 and reiterated the reason for not accepting the claim.

          The Opposite Party further submits that, admittedly the insured had failed to pay the monthly premium due to the month of March 2013 onwards hence, the claim made by the complainant was not admitted and prays for dismissal.

 III.    In support of the above complaint the complainant Smt. Rohini, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C9. The Opposite Parties not led any evidence hence treated nil.

IV.     In view of the above said facts, the points for arise for our consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant proved that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

        We have considered the arguments submitted by the complainant and Opposite Party and also considered the materials that was placed before the Fora and answered the points are as follows:

                     Point No. (i) : Negative

                    Point No. (ii) : Negative

                    Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

V.   POINTS No. (i) and (ii): 

          In order to substantiate the case, complainant filed evidence by affidavit and produced documents Ex.C1 to C9 as listed in the annexure. After perusal of evidence and documents of the complainant, the husband of the complainant had taken Rural Postal Life Insurance policies mentioned above from 30.3.2011 by paying Rs.268/ monthly premium to the Opposite Parties for 7 years and paid premium up to March 2013 as per Ex.C1 to C4.  On 15.10.2013 the policy holder died due to severe ill health as per Ex.C9 since May 2013 the complainant husband not keeping well.  After the death the complainant, filed claim petition to the Opposite Party No.1 along with original policies and original pass book and all the documents are with the Opposite Party.  On 20.5.2014 as per Ex.C5 the Opposite Party repudiated the claim stating that policies were lapsed due to non payment of premium from 4/2013 to 10/2013 claim not be admitted hence complainant prayed that even the matured amount is not paid the paid premium should be refunded to the complainant.      On the other hand Opposite Parties are admitted that the complainant husband taken the rural postal life insurance from Opposite Party No.2.  The premium of Rs.268/ paid only up to march 2013 thereafter the complainant husband not paid the premium hence lapsed.  The insured are lapsed on account of non payment of premiums due as per Rule 56 (2) (b) (iv) of post office life insurance Rule 2011 the policies afore said are accordingly become void hence the claim legally rejected.  The above information is within the knowledge of the complainant and it was communicated to her as per Ex.C5 and the issuance of the rural postal life insurance policy to the citizens are social security measures under taken by the Government of India through the postal Department of the Government of India and the same is not with any profit motive or with commercial interest on the part of the Opposite Party.  Now the points for consideration that, it is admitted fact that the complainant husband not paid the premium from March 2013.  Since the premium not paid the policy was lapsed due to non-payment.  The contention of the complainant that due to sever illhealth the insurer was not paid the premium to prove the fact not placed any documents in that effect.  Further the contention of the complainant that the original claim documents are with the Opposite Party no.1 if so, the remedy left open to the complainant that to seek permission from the fora to summon the documents from Opposite Party No.1. but the complainant not taken the advantage. Hence the contention raised by the complainant is not acceptable.  As per Ex.C7 it reveals that  the policies under reference are lapsed on account of non payment of premium due to be paid on the policies noted .  As per para 56 (2) (b) (iv0 of post office life insurance Rules 2011.  The policies have become void and the claimant is not entitled to any payment from the department.  For the above said reason refund of paid amount does not arise Under these circumstances the complainant well aware the situation of the above, and knocking the door of this fora is not justified, the Rule 2011 of post office life insurance clearly says that once the policy lapsed claim is not entitled hence the Opposite Parties are not committed deficiency in service.  Considering the above, the point No. 1 and 2 in negative.

          In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order.

ORDER

                The complaint is dismissed.

            Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by Member to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 5^th April 2017)

             MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

      (LAVANYA M RAI)                    (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum          D.K. District Consumer Forum

             Mangalore                                       Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Smt. Rohini,

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 30.3.2011: Premium Receipts of Policy No.719921 (18)

Ex.C2: 30.3.2011: Premium Receipts of Policy No.719932 (18)

Ex.C3: 30.3.2011: Premium Receipts of Policy No.719939 (18)

Ex.C4: 30.3.2011: Premium Receipts of Policy No.729589 (17)

Ex.C5: 20.5.2014: Repudiation letter of 1^st Opposite Party.

Ex.C6: 9.2.2015: O/c of the regd lawyers notices (4)

Ex.C7: 25.2.2015: Reply of the 1^st opposite Party.

Ex.C8: 21.2.2015: Postal Acknowledgment of 2^nd Opposite Party (3).

Ex.C9; 13.11.2013: Copy of the death certificate.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Nil

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Nil

Dated: 5.4.2017                                        MEMBER