COMPLAINT FILED: 30.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 18th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2330/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt. Lakshmi. D.S.,<br /> W/o. Late. B.G. Srinivasa,<br /> Residing at No. 900, <br /> 4th main,<br /> H.A.L. (CTS),<br /> Marathahalli,<br /> Bangalore – 560 037.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (P. Shiva Kumar)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Chief Postmaster General,<br /> Postal Life Insurance,<br /> IInd Floor, GPO Building,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay the insurance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant’s husband B.G. Srinivas an employee of H.A.L has taken the policy from the OP for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium per month being Rs.295/-, it is directed to be paid to OP from his salary by the pay drawing authority. He was prompt in making payment of the premium every month out of his salary. Complainant is the nominee under the said policy. On 17.10.2006 B.G. Srinivas expired, thereafter complainant made a claim to OP to pay the insurance amount. OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the premium for the month of March, June 2006 is not paid. Hence the policy stood in a lapsed condition. The repudiation is unjust and improper. Subsequent to March as well as June 2006 OP has accepted the premium, with all that it failed to settle the claim. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the husband of the complainant obtained the postal insurance policy under Group Leadership Scheme commencing from 19.09.2005. Complainant husband is bound by the policy terms and conditions. As B.G. Srinivas has become the defaulter in non-payment of the premium regularly the policy stood lapsed even prior to his death. Though OP intimated the insurer by addressing several letters to pay the regular premium, it went in vain. Hence OP is bound to invoke Rule 39(1) of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules. As such it is justified in repudiating the said claim. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. The complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant husband B.G. Srinivas obtained the postal insurance policy under Group Leadership Scheme commencing from 19.09.2005 and the sum assured being Rs.1,00,000/-, the premium payable is Rs.295/- per month which is to be credited by recovery from salary of B.G. Srinivas. It is also not at dispute that complainant is the nominee under the said policy. It is contended by the complainant that her husband was regular in making payment of the premium. Due to some ill health there was a lapse in non-payment of certain premium with respect to one or two months, subsequently there to it was again paid and the policy was in force till the death of the insured. The fact that husband of the complainant died on 17.10.2006 is also not at dispute.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that the premium for the month of February and May 2006 is not paid. The said premium was not recovered from his salary because the salary itself is not drawn due to his unauthorized absence may be on medical grounds. If OP wants to contend that due to the non-payment of the said premium in time the policy stood lapsed, then what made OP to receive the premium in the month of May 2006, April 2006, then from June to September 2006 till the death of insured in the month of October 2006 is not known. The documents produced by the OP speaks to the above said fact. Of course H.A.L has reported to the OP that the salary of B.G. Srinivas for the month of February, May and October 2006 is not drawn because of insufficient earnings, that is the reason the premium is not sent. <br /> <br /> 8. OP has not placed such other document to show what is the amount that is collected from the subsequent cheques for the month of March, April, June, August, September 2006 is not known. Hence for this simple reason the contention of the OP because of the non-payment of the premium for two months policy stood lapsed rather appears to be untenable.<br /> <br /> 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it would have been more fair on the part of the OP to intimate the insured that his policy has been lapsed because of non-payment of the premium. No such steps are taken. It is simply stated by the OP that insured was intimated by letter dated 07.10.2005 to pay the premium amount and subsequently thereto in the month of November, December 2005, then January, February 2006 the premium is paid. This is borne out by the documents produced by the OP themselves. Under such circumstances we find the repudiation is unjust, improper and without due application of the mind. Complainant for no fault of her, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence she is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the insurance claim for Rs.1,00,000/- and pay the same to the complainant the nominee under the policy within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. In default of payment of the said Rs.1,00,000/- as ordered OP is directed to pay an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of repudiation till the date of realization along with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />