IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday  the 19^th  day of  March, 2018

Filed on 30.10.2017

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

in

C.C.No.291/2017

between

Complainant:-                                                               Opposite Party:-

Sarasamma                                                                    Bushra S Deepa

Vayalattuchirayil,                                                          District SLI Officer,

North Aryadu.P.O,                                                        SLI Office,

Alappuzha.                                                                    Alappuzha.                                             

O R D E R

SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant is as follows:-

Complainant had taken a policy No KSID/LI/MPM/180908/89 of State Life Insurance Department on 1989 January.  The monthly premium of Rs.30/- is taken from her salary continuously.  On April 2017 she retired from the job.  She has received only Rs. 9360/- from the opposite party. She has to get Rs. 10440/- with bonus that amounts to              Rs.20,000/-.  When she complained about it to the opposite party they stated that complainant defaulted in remitting premium in the initial period of the policy.  Opposite party did not inform the complainant about default that she made.   Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.

          2. Version of the opposite parties is as follows:-

          Complainant had taken a policy in the year 1989.  But she has remitted premium of Rs.30/- each from 28/1990 to 3/2016.   It is the duty of the disbursing officer of the complainant to deduct the policy amount from the salary and enter it in her pass book.  Opposite party paid the amount that the complainant is entitled to get.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.  Complainant’s husband was examined as PW1. He filed authorization to conduct case.  The documents produced marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A4.  Documents produced from the part of the opposite party are marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2.

4.  The points came up for considerations are:- 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2.  If so the reliefs and costs?

5.  It is an admitted fact that complainant had taken a policy of opposite party on Jan 1989.  According to the complainant she has remitted premium amount continuously for 27 years and she entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite party.  But according to the opposite party she defaulted in remitting premium during the initial period of policy.  They further stated that it’s the duty of disbursing officer to deduct premium from the salary of the complainant and enter it in the pass book.  The pass book of the complainant produced and marked as Ext.A1.  On verifying the Ext.A1 we came to see that even though 1^st premium of Rs.30/- was remitted on Jan 1989, there after no premium collected till 23/9/1990.  According to the opposite, out of 17 months premium dues, the complainant remitted only 5 installments.  The reply received from the Public Information Officer as per RTI Act is produced and marked as Ext.A2.  It shows that premium amount deducted as per the policy of the complainant was from 2/90 till 3/16.  So the complainant is entitled to get the amount that deducted from the salary of the complainant.  It is admitted by the opposite party that they paid Rs. 9,350/- to the complainant. If the complainant paid premium from 2/1990 to 3/2016 as admitted by the opposite party she is entitled to get Rs. 9,880 from the opposite party.  Instead of that she was paid only          Rs. 9360/-, so the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs. 9750 – 9350 = Rs.300.  Ext.B1 is the letter dated 23/10/1989 issued by the opposite party to the medical officer P.H Centre, Vettam Malappuram, which shows that the medical officer PH Centre was directed to remit Rs. 30/- each from salary of the complainant. As per Ext.B1 the disbursing officer was directed to deduct the policy premium from salary of the complainant and he failed to deduct it.   From the above facts we are of opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in providing insurance amount to the complainant. At the same time we came to see that they are liable to pay  Rs. 300/- to the complainant. 

 In the result complaint is partly allowed.  Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.300/- to the complainant.  No further amount towards cost and compensation.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 19^th day of March, 2018.    

                                                       Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :

                                                  Sd/- Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)      :

                                                  Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)            :

Appendix:-

      Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                -        Sivanandan P.V (Witness)     

Ext.A1series    -        Copy of Policy details

Ext.A2             -        Copy of RTI

Ext.A3             -        Copy of Policy details

Ext.A4             -        Discharge certificate of SLI Policy

Evidence of the opposite party:-

Ext.B1             -        Copy of the letter dtd. 22-12-2014

Ext.B2             -        Insurance Policy details

 // True Copy //                               

By Order                                                                                                                                

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:- Br/- 

Compared by:-

:

​