By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1.The complaint in short is as follows: -

     The complainant subscribed postal life insurance policy of the opposite party in the year 2010 and she started to remit monthly premium amount of Rs. 561/-. The complainant deposited 35 instalments starting from 29/12/2010 to 31/10/2013 and the total amount remitted was Rs.19,635/-.   The opposite party had assured that they will refund the deposited amount along with proportionate bonus at the time of maturity.  The policy maturity date was on 29/12/2019 and the complainant approached the opposite party on 18/10/2020 with claim form.  But the opposite party denied the claim stating that the complainant was bound to remit 36 instalments and then only she is entitled to the claim.   The complainant submits that the opposite party denied the claim stating the default of one instalment.  The complainant submitted that her husband was a bus conductor and she along with children depended  the income for her husband for the livelihood of family.  The complainant could not remit the 36^thinstalments since the husband became ill. 

2.      The complainant filed complaint before the opposite party, but they did not give a proper reply. The complainant submitted that she subscribed the policy for the educational purpose of the children and due to denial of the insurance she is suffering mental agony and financial loss.  Hence the complainant prays for the refund of remitted amount Rs.19,635/- along with proportionate bonus and also compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and cost. 

3.        On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.  

4.         The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had submitted proposal for

Rural Postal Life Insurance scheme (Endowment Assurance) at Amarambalam south branch of post office on 29/12/2010 and the same was accepted by the opposite party.  The complainant remitted 35 instalments of Rs. 561 till 31/10/2013.  The maturity date of the policy was 29/12/2019 and the complainant approached 3^rdoppositeparty for maturity claim along with application on 18/10/2020.  Since the policy was not paid for a minimum period of 36 instalments and the policy has become void.  A void policy is one, which is less than three years duration and any premiums that have become due, not paid either on the first day of the month for which the premium is due or within the period of grace.   Any policy which is not in force due to non-payment of any premium with in the period of grace, shall be treated as lapsed and void and shall be governed by the relevant POIF Rules for their settlement or revival.  The opposite party  is not liable to entertain void policies, the petitioner herein  had very well  understood  and accepted  all the terms and conditions  of the scheme and the proposal was  submitted accordingly.  The opposite party submitted that avoid policy can be revived before attaining the date of maturity, but in this case the maturity date was over and so could not be revived.  The submission of the opposite party is that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the contract between the complainant and opposite party and the RPLI policy is only meant for insuring the life of the proposal. 

5.   The opposite party submitted that as per the conditions of the policy,  that  if the insured shall pay to the  Director general of posts or the officer for time being performing his functions or any  other officer duly authorised  by the president of India in this behalf, the subsequent periodical premia  within the prescribed  time limit of such payment  as stipulated  for in the said Schedule or until his / her death, whichever shall first occur,  the President of India shall be subject and liable to pay the sum mentioned in the said schedule together with the bonus, if any  declared by the  President of India to the insured  or his /her  assigns  as early as possible  after  proof of the death  of the insured  and title of  the claimant, to the satisfaction of the Director General of the posts or the officer  for the time being  performing  his function  or  any other officer  duly authorised by the President of India in this behalf  as aforesaid.  The policy bond issued to the complainant has clearly stated that all payment made by the insured of a void policy shall be forfeited. 

6.     The opposite party submitted that they are working under the union of India and implementing various rules and instructions of the Government of India.  The post office life insurance Rules have been framed by the Government of India and the opposite parties are bound by these set of Rules and rules cannot bowed for the benefit of complainant. It is submitted that the complainant failed to maintained the conditions of the contract between Government of India and the complainant is to derive undue benefits by approaching the Commission which otherwise complainant is not entitled to. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that, if the complaint is allowed there will be a cascading effect causing unjustified expenditure from public exchequer.  It is submitted that the complaint is devoid of merits and there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs to the opposite parties.

7.     The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A5 and documents on the side of opposite parties marked as Ext. B1 to B6.Ext. A1 is copy of Rural Costal Life Insurance Schedule with date of commencement of 29/12/2010. Ext. A2 is passbook of policy No: R-KL-EA-457486. Ext. A3 is series of premium receipts. Ext.A4 is acceptance letter of RPLI proposal dated 15/06/2011.Ext.A5 is copy of letter from the complainant to the Chief Post Master General, Kerala circle dated 18/10/2020. Ext.B1 is copy of proposal form dated 29/12/2010. Ext.B2 is copy of acceptance letter of RPLI proposal dated 15/06/2011.Ext.B3 is Abstract from the Gazette of India April 15^th 1995.  Ext.B4 is abstract from the Rules 58(3) of POLI Rules 2011.  Ext. B5 is   extract of POLI Rule NO.37. Ext.B6 is copy of Gazette Notification of April 15^th 1995.

8.  Heard complainant and opposite parties.  The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is entitled the benefit of the insurance policy?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Reliefs and cost?

9.Point No.1 & 2:-

        There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant subscribed the Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy with the opposite party and the complainant  remitted 35 monthly instalments of Rs. 561/-. The policy commences from 29/12/2010 and becomes matured on 29/12/2019.  The complainant approached the opposite party for the deposited amount along with benefits there under.  The opposite party denied the claim since the policy become void due to non-remittance of 36 monthly instalments.  According to the opposite party, the policy is void as per Postal Life Insurance Rule No.37.Rule 37  define that  void means  a policy which is  less than three years duration  and  any premiums   that have become due, not paid  either on the first day  of the month  for which  the premium is due or within the period of grace.  In this complaint there is no dispute that the complainant remitted only 35 instalments. The complainant remitted Rs.561/- per month up to 35 months without any default.   The last instalment paid by the complainant on 31/10/2013.  Thereafter the complainant could not remit the premium amount.   The complainant is a rural lady, wife of bus conductor and the entire family depending upon the income of the husband and due to the ailment to her husband the entire family was in crisis and so she could not remit further premium.  The complainant submitted that she subscribed the policy for the educational purpose of her children.  The policy become matured during the period December 2019 and thereafter she approached the opposite party for the deposited amount including benefits on  18/10/2020.  The complainant came to know the fact that she could remit only 35instalments and due to short of one instalment she was not entitled for the benefit as per the Rule.

 10.        It can be seen from Ext. B6 that the object of Rural Postal Life Insurance scheme

1995 is envisaged to provide insurance cover to the Rural public in General and benefit weaker section and women workers of Rural areas in particular.  So, the perusal of the averments in the complaint, it can be seen that the complainant is the apt person to subscribe the policy as per the scheme and for the benefit of the people like complainant the scheme stands introduced. The scheme has been introduced by the Government of India.  It can be seen that   the legislative intention is to upliftment of weaker section and women workers of rural areas in particular.   It can be noted that the complainant remitted 35 instalments without any default and thereafter till attaining the maturity period the opposite party never communicated with the complainant either reminding the void conditions of the policy or directed to   remit the instalments till the maturity period.  Hence the lapse of remitting the premium from the side of complainant cannot be treated as wilful one but an accidental omission.   It is also pertinent to not that policy which is lapse can be revived before the maturity period.   If the opposite party had informed the complainant the complainant could have remitted the defaulted instalment of 36^th.  So, the complainant alone is not responsible for the situation but the opposite party is also equally liable for the same.   It can be seen that a poor woman from Rural Area deposited her hard-earned money of Rs. 19635/- before the opposite party  with  great expectations.  But due to an accidental omission the opposite party is denying the deposited amount and the benefit there under.  Hence, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the opposite party that due to accidental omission of payment of one instalment make the complainant disentitling the claim. The opposite party contented that; the complainant is trying to derive undue benefits by approaching the Consumer Commission which otherwise the complainant is not entitled.   It is also submitted by the opposite party that   if the complaint is allowed it will cause for a cascading effect causing unjustified expenditure from public exchequer.  But it can be seen that the complaint is approaching the opposite party for her deposited hard-earned money and not for any undue benefit from the public exchequer.  It appears the order to refund the deposited amount without any other benefit will do justice to the complainant.  In the interest of justice and considering the object of Rural postal life insurance scheme and non-issuance of notice to the complainant regarding default of payment of instalments, we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, and we direct opposite parties to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 19,635/- to the complainant.  

11. Point No:3:-

   In the light above facts and circumstances, the Commission partly allow this complaint as follows:-

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 19,635/-(Rupees Nineteen thousand six hundred and thirty five only) to the complainant, the deposited amount of the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
3. The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of

receipt of copy of this order failing which the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

Dated this 31^st day of October, 2022.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A5

Ext. A1 : Copy of Rural Costal Life Insurance Schedule with date of commencement of

                  29/12/2010.

Ext. A2 : Passbook of policy No: R-KL-EA-457486.

Ext. A3 : Series premium receipts.

Ext.A4  :Acceptance letter of RPLI proposal dated 15/06/2011.

Ext.A5 : Copy of letter from the complainant to the Chief Post Master General, Kerala

                Circle dated 18/10/2020.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: NiL

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B 6

Ext.B1 :Copy of proposal form dated 29/12/2010.

Ext.B2 : Copy of acceptance letter of RPLI proposal dated 15/6/2011.

Ext.B3  :Abstract from the Gazette of India April 15^th 1995.

Ext.B4 : Abstract from the Rules 58(3) of POLI Rules 2011.

Ext. B5 :Abstract of POLI Rule No.37.
Ext.B6 : Copy of Gazette Notification of April 15^th 1995.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER