BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member
Tuesday, the 12th day of February, 2013
CC.No. 12 of 2012
Between:
1. Samparaboyana Laxmi W/o Durgaiah,
Age: 45 yrs, Occ: House wife.
2. Samparaboyana Durgaiah S/o late Sathaiah,
Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Agrl,
R/o Satpally Kalan village & branch post office,
Rajpally sub post office, Medak District.
…. Complainants
And
1. Branch Post Master
Shatpally Kalan village & branch post office,
Rajpally Sub Post office, Medak District.
2. Rural Postal Life Insurance Services,
Hyderabad Region, Asst. Director of postal services,
O/o the post Master General, Hyderabad Region,
Hyderabad – I, 500 001
… Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 29.01.2013 in the presence of Sri M. Narsimlu, Advocate for complainants and Sri N. Shiva kumar, Advocate for opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 and heard the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant on the grounds, in brief, that their son Samparaboyana Shekar died on 11.08.2010. During his life time he had obtained “Rural Postal Life Insurance” policy, dated 31.03.2009 and that he had paid Rs. 390/- on 23.03.2009 towards the first premium. The policy amount was for Rs. 2 lakhs. Unfortunately, by oversight the date of birth was mentioned 15.02.1986 instead of 15.02.1988. The claim is repudiated for this oversight. The complainants claim from the opposite parties to pay them the sum assured: Rs. 2,00,000/- along with bonus and interest from 01.10.2010 till date of realization and seek a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and mental agony.
2. The opposite parties filed their counter and opposed the claim by contending, in brief, that the monthly premiums were paid upto August 2010. The opposite parties obtained a bonafide certificate issued by the Head master ZPHS, Bandlasanpally, where in his date of birth in 15.02.1986. At the time of taking the policy, the deceased Shekar, was shown as aged 22 years, though he was actually 24 years old. The insurer had voluntarily suppressed the real facts to avoid paying a higher premium of Rs. 420/- p.m. For having given wrong information (by the insured) at the time of taking the policy and declaration on the proposal form, the policy and declaration of the proposal form, the policy is void. Hence payments made towards monthly premiums are liable to be forfeited and given to the department. They are not liable to pay any amount of the policy along with bonus and damages. Hence prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. The complainants filed their affidavits, written arguments and marked exhibits A1 to A5 to substantiate their claim. The opposite parties filed their evidence affidavit version and marked exhibits B1 to B4, to defend their case.
4. The point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to the policy amount and the relief as prayed for?
Point:
5. There is no dispute regarding the policy obtained by the deceased Samparaboyana Shekar. The dispute is regarding the misrepresentation of his date of birth.
6. The deceased obtained a RPLI policy vide policy No. R-AP-EA-11219 for Rs. 2,00,000/- dated 31.03.2009. The complainants have filed Ex. A2 (acceptance letter) to prove the same. In this exhibit, it is clearly mentioned that the sum assured in Rs. 2,00,000/- and maturity term is 58 years. The monthly premium is Rs.390/- and date of birth is written as 15.02.1988. The monthly premiums were being paid regularly upto August 2010, till his sudden death. To prove the same Ex. A4 and Ex. A5 have been filed.
7. The deceased and his parents were not literate people and the “Grameena Tapala Jeevitha Bheema”, (RPLI) Proposal Form Ex.B1 filed by the opposite parties – is filled by the branch post master – K. Mallesham (BPM) Shetpally Kalan. Obviously neither the deceased nor his parents were able to fill the form. The deceased has signed his name in Telugu. In this form, his age is mentioned as 22 years and date of birth 15.02.1988, and his qualification is mentioned as –SSC failed. Keeping all this in view, the opposite parties have secured a Bonafide certificate – Ex. B3, issued by ZPHS Bondaposanapally where the late Shekar was studying in class 7 (June 1998) and here the date of birth is written as 15.02.1986. This is a Xerox copy and the late Shekar was in class 7 for two years.
8. Ex. B2 is a report card where the late Shekar’s date of birth is written as 15.02.1988. The postal proposal form (Ex.B1) was filled by the BPM on the basis of Ex. B2. Ex.B2 is not a very valid document but in the absence of a birth certificate they have accepted this document. Having accepted the policy on the basis of Ex. B2, the very same postal department repudiates the claim on the ground of wrong representation.
9. Ex. A3 is the copy of death certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, where it is clearly stated that Shekar died owing to a snake bite. Even if had he willfully misrepresented his age he would have had to pay an extra of Rs. 30 per month. Instead of paying Rs. 390/- per month he would have had to pay Rs. 420/- per month. It is common knowledge that in the present day living standards even for a labourer from a rural background it is not difficult to pay Rs. 30/- per month. Therefore there is no substance in the allegation of opposite parties that to save that paltry amount of Rs. 30/- the deceased has furnished wrong date of birth.
10. Further, the proposal form, Ex.B1 was duly filled by branch post master (BPM) and relevant details regarding age was based on Ex. B2 – Now at the time of claiming the policy amount the opposite parties cannot repudiate the claim by stating that the date of birth was wrongly represented.
In support of this contention, we have relied on a decision in, “Shashi Gupta (Smt.) vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India &Anr., I (1996) CPJ 15 (SC)=1995 Supp. (1) SCC 754, in which it has been held as follows:
“As both the aforesaid interpretations are reasonably possible, we would accept the one which favours the policy-holder, as the same advances the purpose for which a policy is taken and would be inconsonance with the object to be achieved for getting lives assured.”
All the above noted circumstances will clearly lead to a conclusion that the actual date of birth of the deceased is 15.02.1988 but only by mistake it was noted as 15.02.1986 at the time of obtaining of the policy. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being a beneficial Legislation, we have to interpret the facts of the case in the right letter and sprit of the enactment in furtherance of the ends of justice. It is now a well settled proposition of law that, “mere technicalities should not defeat the justice”.
11. The deceased Shekar died at a young age. His untimely demise must be very hard for his family to bear. Had he been alive, the family income would surely be supplemented by his earnings. Therefore in the circumstances the complainants are certainly entitled for a reasonable compensation.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is fit to be allowed, the point is answered in favour of the complainants accordingly.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed and directing the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 to jointly and severally pay the complainants the sum assured to S. Shekar of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with bonus and interest @ 8% p.a. from 1.10.2010 till realization. And further to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards damages and mental agony. Cost of litigation is Rs. 1000/-. Time for compliance: One month.
Dictated to Stenographer, after correction the order was pronounced by us in the open court this the 12th day of January, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
