BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 19/11.
THIS THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Lokman Singh, Kushala Karmi S/o. Devan Singh,
Age 59 years, Occ: Retd. Mechanic, KSRTC, Lingasugur Division, Lingasugur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. Chief Post Master, General PLI Section,
Karnataka Circle, GPO Circle, Bangalore.
2. Post Master, Post Office Lingasugur,
Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
CLAIM : For to direct opposite Nos-1 & 2 to make the
repayment of premium amount or payment of maturity amount of the policy in question along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. etc.,
Date of institution :- 05-03-11.
Notice served :- 10-03-11.
Date of disposal :- 29-11-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. T.M. Swamy, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. M. Nagaraj, Advocate.
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Gururaj, Member:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Lokman Singh Kushalakarmi against opposite N0-1 Chief Post Master, and No-2 Post Master, Lingasugur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct opposite Nos-1 & 2 to make the repayment of premium amount or payment of maturity amount of the policy in question along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. etc.,
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he was the employee of KSRTC worked as Mechanic. During his service he has obtained the PLI Policy bearing No. KT 179340-US with a monthly premium of Rs. 488/-, accordingly he has paid Rs. 12,500/- total premium through his salary upto 2006. Further it is the case of the complainant that, from June-2004 to October-2005 he was suffered with ill-health and for that reason he was not able to make the payment of policy premiums but later on through letter dt. 07-10-2005 he has moved an application to the opposite for to get permission to make the balance premium amount and for continuation of policy but the opposite No-1 through letter dt. 21-11-2005 asked for to send some documents pertaining to the policy, accordingly I have sent to the opposite No-1 but, the opposite No-1 through letter dt. 11-08-2008 sought some opinions in reply through letter dt. 29/30-08-2008 I have written a letter and answered for their opinions but in this regard, there was no opinion from the opposite.
Further, it is the case of the complainant that, after his retirement of his service and in view of the completion of the PLI policy period on 11-02-2011 I have written a letter dt. 12-01-2011 to the opposite and requested the opposite No-1 for to get surrender the policy and for to make the payment of surrender value. But for that, the opposite through letter dt. 31-01-2011 by giving their opinion rejecting my application informed me that, as per the rules any maturity amount will not be given. This act of the opposite is illegal under the law and deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Hence he has sought for reliefs as prayed in complaint.
3. Opposite appeared in this case through Advocate, filed his written version by contending that, the complainant has paid the premium only upto May 2004 as per the PLI Fund Rules 39, 40 and 41 the policy was lapsed. The complainant was not keeping good health and availed a medical leave from 14-07-2003 to 18-04-2004 therefore his policy cannot reinstated in view of Sub Rule 3 Rule 39. It is the duty of the complainant/insurant to keep his policy alive to get the benefit of the policy, but the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, and policy was lapsed condition for not to make the premium of the policy regularly. Under such circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for any amount as claimed in his complaint and prayed for to dismiss the complaint against opposites with cost among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite, as alleged.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Affirmative in respect of the payment premium amount.
(2) In Negative in respect of the reinstate the policy and payment of maturity amount of the policy.
(3) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(4) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of Assistant Superintendent of Posts, who has authorized by opposite No-1 was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-14 are marked.
7. It is admitted fact that, the complainant has obtained the PLI policy bearing No. KT 179340-US on 11-01-2002 for a sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- on monthly premium of Rs. 488/-. It is also admitted that, the complainant was not paid premium amounts regularly and for that reasons the policy was lapsed.
8. After going through the pleadings of the parties, and documents filed by them, now the following points are arising out of it.
1) Whether, the complainant policy is lapsed due to non payment of the premiums as contended by the opposite.
2) Whether, the opposite has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant in respect of the payment of the premium amount.
3) Whether, the opposite has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant regarding reinstate of the policy and payment of maturity amount under the policy.
The first point is concerned, we have perused Ex.P-3 = Ex.R-3 i.e, Postal Life Insurance Policy which has commenced from 11-01-2002 for a sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- on monthly premium of Rs. 488/- and it is also reveals that, the date of maturity of the policy is as on 11-01-2011. Further on perusal of Ex.R-4 i.e, The letter dt. 11-02-2005 written by complainant to the Deputy Divisional Manager, PLI Karnataka Bangalore. It appears that, the complainant has paid premium amount lastly on May-2004. Similarly we have gone through Ex.R-12 the ledger extract details dt. 13-01-2011 and we have seen the date of his total premium payments from the date of obtaining the policy. According to this Ex.R-12 the complainant has paid premium amount in all 29 months it means the first premium amount was paid on 11-01-2002 and last premium was on May-2004. Further, it is also reveals that, he was due from June-2004 to August-2006. As per Ex.R-3 the complainant has to pay the last premium on December-2010 it means in all he was due 27 months as on August-2006 and also further premium from 2006 to December-2010. These facts are clearly goes to show that, the complainant is due in payment of premiums and for that reasons the policy has been lapsed as per the Post Office PLI Rules as contended by the opposite.
9. The complainant in his complaint as stated that, he was due only six months but in order to prove his case, he has not produced any docuemtns to show that he was due only six months. But as per the documents made available before this Forum as per Ex.R-12 he was due 27 months as stated supra. Under such circumstances, it is clear cut case that, there was a due in making the payment and for that, reasons the policy has been laspsed as contended by the opposite. Hence, the point No-1 proved in favour of the opposite.
The second point is concerned, there is no dispute that, the complainant has paid premium amount of Rs. 12,500/- upto 2006 in respect of the policy in question. Further, it is also not in dispute that, the further premiums have been due by the complainant. Further it is also not in dispute that, the complainant through letter dt. 12-01-2011 under Ex.R-10 submitted the details of the policy and premium receipt book to the opposite and requested for to sanction of surrender value on the policy. But in turn opposite party through letter dt. 31-01-2010 has intimated to the complainant sating that, the premium remitted to the opposite under the Insurance Policy cannot be refundable. Now, the question before us is that, the refusal of the repayment of the premium amount of Rs. 12,500/- paid by the opposite is proper are not. No doubt the opposite by relying upon the Rule 39, 40 of Post Office Life Insurance Fund Rules have rejected the claim of the complainant in this regard. But, when they have admitted the receipt of the premiums from the complainant and that money is lying with the Insurance Company of the opposite merely putting some reasons on the basis of the rules they cannot reject the payment of the premium as per their rules. This decision of the opposite will effect the interest of the common man and as well as the natural justice. No doubt the policy in question is lapsed due to non payment of the premiums but this is not for any intentional reason but because of in ability on the part of the complainant as he was ill health and the condition that the complainant has faced is beyond his control. Under such circumstances, the repudiation of the entire claims itself is an illegal as per their own Rule 28 of PLI Act. But here, in this case the complainant has fairly admitted in ability and requested for the opposite to accord permission to accept the due premium amounts after he has recovered from his ill health and after joining the duty from long period of his absence. Further, he has also requested the opposite to settle the claim by repaying the premium amounts what he has paid or to reinstate the policy by accepting the policy due or to make the payment of maturity value. Under such circumstances, the request made by the complainant against the opposite in respect of reinstate the policy and making the payment of entire maturity value may be impossible but refusing the claim to the extent of paid up amount in respect of premium is definitely against the natural justice. The opposite is not supposed to keep the said amount with them, actually they have to given it to the policyholder with interest immediately after they have cancelled the policy or when the policy has been lapsed as contended by them due to non payment of premium regularly. In this regard we have referred the ruling of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka submitted from the counsel for complainant in Huchappa and another V/s. Union of India and others case cited in 2007 (2) KCCR 845 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has clearly held that,
“ Condition impose by the insurance company while assuring the life of the policyholder to forfeit the amount if, the amount/premium is not paid for full three years, held, will be detrimental to the interest of the common man and it will be in clear violation of article 21, 38 and 39 of the constitution. Such practice being adopted by the corporation will be amassing the wealth of the public and thereby resulting in concentration of wealth, which does not legitimately entitled them to retain the amount/premium paid by the policyholder whose policies have lapsed when due to the financial hardship they could not get their policy revived. The same has been directed to be returned with the interest”.
The above said ruling is amply applicable to the case of the complainant, hence we have accepted the same in support of our views regarding non payment of the premium amount. Hence we have answered the Point No-2 in favour of the complainant and we have come to the conclusion that the act of the opposite in this regard is against the natural justice, hence we have come to the conclusion that, the entire premium amount what they have received from the complainant is to be refunded with interest.
The third point is concerned, regarding rejection of reinstate the policy and payment of entire policy maturity amount is concerned, we have answered in favour of the opposite because the complainant has approached the opposite for to reinstate the policy after long gap and after its lapsed condition. The contention of the opposite in this regard about his ill health and long leave on medical ground without pay will also support the case of the opposite. The complainant, he himself has admitted that, he was not keeping good health and he was remained absent to his duty and he has also admitted that, no premium amount has been remitted to his policy premium account. Further, in his complaint he has admitted that, he has retired from the service and in the mean time the policy was matured on 11-01-2011. As per the Ex.R-12 the ledger extract details dt. 13-01-2011 the complainant has paid premium amount at first time on 11-01-2002 and last premium was on May-2004. Further it reveals that, he was due from June 2004 to August 2006 it means in all he was due as on August-2006. It means in all his due is 27 months. It is more than six months as per Rule 39 (3), and it is also more than the (12) months as per Rule 40 (4) and 41of the PLI Insurance Policy Rule. Further it is also very clear from the above said fact that, the policy cannot be continued because of due in payment of the premiums and policy will be lapsed. Under such circumstances, policy cannot be reinstated as contended by the opposite and when the policy was lapsed condition its maturity amount will also not be given to the complainant. Hence, the contention of the opposite regard holds good. Hence we do not find, any reasons to hold that, the opposites have committed any mistake in this regard. So we have answered the point No-3 in favour of the opposite. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any reasons to believe that, the claim of the complainant in respect of the premium amount of Rs. 12,500/- is illegal or against the provisions of the PLI Insurance Rules. Further, we do not accepted the other claim of the complainant regarding maturity of the amount under the policy or the allegation in respect of reinstate the policy. Accordingly, we answered Point No-1 & 2.
10. The claim of the complainant in his complaint is to direct opposite Nos-1 & 2 to make the repayment of premium amount or payment of maturity amount of the policy in question along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. etc., The complainant in his claim has claimed repayment of Rs. 12,500/- towards premium amount what he has paid to the policy bearing No. KT 179340-US for sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- on monthly premium amount of Rs. 488/-. Further, the opposite have not denied such payment of Rs. 12,500/- neither in the written version nor through any evidence. Further it is admitted in Ex.R-12 by the opposite that, the complainant has paid premium in all (29) months. After we have calculated the same the total premium amount was paid by the complainant is Rs. 14,152/- from January 2002 to May 2004 (488x29) but not Rs. 12,500/- as contended by the complainant. This fact was also admitted by the opposite through Ex.R-12 wherein, it has clearly mentioned about the payment of the premium in ledger extract of the complainant premium paid details. Hence we have considered the Ex.R-12 and opined that, the complainant is entitled to receive the premium amount of Rs. 14,152/- from the opposite with an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. instead of Rs. 12,500/- with 12% interest and thereby we answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly.
POINT NO.3:-
11. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant partly allowed.
The complainant is entitled to receive the premium amount of Rs. 14,152/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 with an interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
One month time is granted to opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to comply the above order from the date of this judgment.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-11-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
