STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 848 of 2013
AGAINST
CC No. 114 of 2011, DISTRICT FORUM AT KHAMMAM
Between :
The Asst. Director, Dist. Insurance Officer,
Govt. of A.P., Wyra road,
Dr. Gorkey Complex,
Khammam .. Appellant/opposite party no.3
And
- G. Nirmala Kumari,
w/o Late Prabhudas,
Lecturer in Zoology,
# 13-3-212, Jyothi Nursing Home road,
P.O. Bhadrachalam – 507 111,
Rep by V. Veerender, President,
Consumer Welfare Council,
# 7-6-60, Medarivari Veedhi,
Khammam ..1st Respondent/complainant
- The Principal, S.R. & B.G. N.R.
Govt. College, Khammam.
- The Principal, Govt. Degree & P.G. College
Bhadrachalam, Khammam ..Respondents/Ops 1 and 2
Counsel for the Appellant : Government Pleader
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao for R-1
Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna for R-2
Sri K. Ravi for R-3
FA 1229 of 2013
AGAINST
CC No. 114 of 2011, DISTRICT FORUM AT KHAMMAM
Between :
The Principal, S.R. & B.G. N.R.
Govt. College, Khammam .. Appellant/first opposite party
And
01. G. Nirmala Kumari,
W/o Late Prabhudas,
Lecturer in Zoology,
# 13-3-212, Jyothi Nursing Home road,
P.O. Bhadrachalam – 507 111,
Rep by V. Veerender, President,
Consumer Welfare Council,
# 7-6-60, Medarivari Veedhi,
Khammam .1st .Respondent/complainant
02. The Principal, Govt. Degree & P.G. College
Bhadrachalam, Khammam .2nd .Respondents/2nd Opp.party
03. The Asst. Director, Dist. Insurance Officer,
Govt. of A.P., Wyra road,
Dr. Gorkey Complex,
Khammam .. ..3rd Respondent/3rd opp. party
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao for R-1
Sri K. Ravi for R-2
Government Pleader for R-3
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Twelfth Day of February
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) These appeals are filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the 3rd opposite party/District Insurance Officer in FA 848 of 2013 and the 1st opposite party/ College Principal praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 made in CC 114 of 2011 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Khammam.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that her husband, N. Prabhudas, who is a Zoology Lecturer in Government Degree college and died on 11.10.2009, has obtained APGLIC policy bearing No. 651191 for the assured sum of Rs.35,010/- with a premium of Rs.100/- per month and the same was recovered from his monthly salary by the drawing and disbursing officer. Her husband enhanced the premium amount from Rs.100/- to Rs.600/- per month w.e.f July, 2006 and the same was deducting from his salary. After the demise of her husband on 11.10.2009, when she submitted the claim to the APGLIC through the concerned Disbursing Officer, she received an amount of Rs.1,08,216/- only. The APGLI though accepted the enhanced amount but never sent any proposal. The APGLI did not send the amount as per the enhanced premium amount of Rs.500/- per month which amounts to Rs.4,56,575/-. The APGLI under RTI Act in their reply dated 21.07.2011 informed that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4,56,575/- with interest, to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.
4). The opposite party no.1 opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that the husband of the complainant joined duty with the first opposite party on 22.07.2009 from 2nd opposite party Degree College and after working for a short period of 46 days, he availed medical leave from 06.09.2009 till his death on 11.10.2009 and during the said period an amount of Rs.600/- per month for the months of August and September, 2009 were deducted as per LPC. As per G.O.(P) No. 423, Finance (admn-II) Department dated 29.11.2005, it is the duty of the Drawing and Disbursing officers concerned to recover the revised premiums from the eligible employees, who are below 48 years of age, forwarding the requisite proposal forms and obtaining requisite polices from the Insurance Department, but, they did not receive any enhanced proposal. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) The second opposite party contended that the husband of the complainant was informed though an office circular dated 02.08.2006 to submit proposal for the enhanced premium and also reminded him orally, but, he did not send the proposal. In such cases, the duty of the disbursing officer is confined to counter sign on the proposals if are submitted and the same would be forwarded to the third opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6). The third opposite party/District Insurance Officer contended that neither the Department nor the deceased has not submitted proposal form to them for issuance of further policy and hence they did not issue additional policy in tune with the excess premium amount of Rs.500/-. As per G.O.(p) No. 423, Finance (Admn-1) Department dated 29.11.2005, it is the duty of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer concerned effecting the recovery of revised premium from all the eligible employees, who are below 48 years of age, forwarding the requisite proposal and obtaining requisite policies from the Insurance Department. As per the Govt. Memo. No. 19921-A/356/Admn-II/95, dated 22.06.1992 instructed the opposite party no. 3 that the premiums accumulated in the above manner without proposal form may be treated unauthorized and the same will be refunded to the concerned. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 and A-6 and the opposite party No. 2 filed attested copy of deducting particulars of APGLIC premium of Sri N. Prabhu Das, and marked Ex. B-1. Heard both sides.
8) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite parties no. 1 o 3 to pay policy amount for the enhanced premium of Rs.500/- along with accepted bonus by deducting the amount of Rs.16,900/- which was paid as unauthorized premium together with interest @ 9% pa from the date of complaint, i.e., 09.11.2011, till the date of actual payment.
9) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 3 preferred appeal in FA 848 of 2013 and the first opposite party preferred appeal in FA 1229 of 2013 before this Commission.
10). Written arguments of R1 and R2 in FA 848 of 2013 and R2 and R3 in FA 1229 of 2013 are on record and both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof. Heard both sides.
11) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
12). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute that the husband of the first respondent/complainant, N. Prabhudas, who is a Zoology Lecturer in Government Degree college and died on 11.10.2009, has obtained APGLIC policy bearing No. 651191 for the assured sum of Rs.35,010/- with a premium of Rs.100/- per month and the same was recovered from his monthly salary by the drawing and disbursing officer and remitted the same to his account of APGLIC. There is no dispute that after the death of her husband, when the first respondent/complainant submitted claim, she was paid an amount of Rs.1,08,216/-. The grievance of the first respondent/complainant is that though her late husband remitted enhanced premium amount from Rs.100/- to Rs.600/-, for which, she was not paid corresponding assured sum, which, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
13). The District Forum observed that the Principal, Bhadrachalam, furnished the particulars of deductions of enhanced premium vide Ex. B1 and the as per Govt. Memo.No.19921-A/356/Admn-II/95, dated 22.06.1992, the Insurance Officer has to refund the premium accumulated without proposal form, but, he failed to refund the same and further without requisite proposal form and obtained insurance policy, the premiums were deducted from the salary of the deceased husband of the first respondent/complainant and hence it amounts to deficiency in service.
14). When the premium was enhanced from any policy holder of APGLI, it is the duty of the Drawing and Disbursing officer to send the proposal form along with requisite information and necessary documents, if any required, to the APGLI authorities and obtain necessary requisite policy. But the opposite parties failed to do so. Without sending proposal form and obtained necessary policy they continued to deduct the enhanced premium from the salary of the deceased policy holder. The Insurance officer did not choose to refund the remitted amount to the Account of the deceased policy holder, when the first respondent/complainant sent the claim. Due to the negligence of the opposite parties, the first respondent/complainant could not be able to get the assured sum that she had to obtain which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the both the appellants and the Principal, Bhadrachalam, i.e., all the opposite parties. In those circumstances, the District Forum directed to pay the policy amount for enhanced amount of Rs.500/- after deducting the remitted amount. We do not find any irregularity in the impugned order.
15). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that we do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. There are no merits in the appeasl and hence they are liable to be dismissed.
16). Point No. 2 :
In the result, both the appeals are dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 in CC 114 of 2011 passed by the District Forum, Khammam. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 12.02.2018.
