The complainant Sri Darshan Das has filed this complaint petition against Post Master, Post office Muksudpur and two others (o.ps) for realization of Rs. 1 lacs   sum assured with 12 % interest from the date of death of Tetri Devi till realization and  Rs. 10,000/- as  litigation cost.

 The brief, facts of the case is that  the mother of complainant  namely Late Tetri Devi had  got insurance policy for RS. 1 lacs from the office of O.P No.1  in the scheme Virdha Pension Yojana on 10-05-2007 after payment of Rs. 115/-. The further case is that during the course of insurance period the mother of complainant died on 12-07-2007. The complainant filed death claim before  o.p no. 1 on 21-09-2007 and 3-10-2007. The further case is that the   the o.ps didn’t pay the claimed amount. The complainant sent a legal notice on 03-12-2007.

The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of   letter sent by  complainant to Head Post Master Head post office Muzaffarpur annexure-1, photocopy of  letter sent by complaint to Post Master Muzaffarpur regarding providing policy no.   annexure-2, photocopy of  cover page of Pass Book annexure-3, photocopy of  Death certificate of Tetari, Devi Date of death 12-08-2007 annexure-4, photocopy of  P.M. Report of Tetri Devi held on 13-08-2007 -annexure-5, photocopy of legal notice annexure-6.

On issuance of notices o.p  No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their w.s. on 15-06-2009 with prayer to exempt  the o.ps from any liabilities.   It has been mentioned in the w.s. that ‘ Group Personal Accident death insurance cover’. Is being provided by OIC to POSB account holders on request basis. It has been further mentioned that the complainant  Darshan Das has not produced following annexure (a) copy of accepting  form POSB  account holder, late Tetri Devi in respect of  her Muksudpur  Branch Post Office S.B. account No-814254 tendered to the post office purchasing an Insurance Policy from  OIC. In case copy of acceptance  form was not available  the onus lies with the complainant  to produce proof that the depositor actually  tendered acceptance letter/form at the post office (b) in case the proposal form  for the accidental life Insurance policy was accepted by the OIC and got policy issued, the complainant  is required to produced the policy bond.

It has been further mentioned that risk cover commences from the date and  time of receipt of premium in OIC office and not from the date of  debiting the  account.  It has been further mentioned that role of the post office is limited to circulating  acceptance forms and handing  over acceptance form received from post office Saving Bank account holder to O.I.C. It has been further mentioned that receipt of acceptance form from the  late Tetri Devi is not supported by the records of post office. It has been further mentioned that this  was her responsibility  to handover acceptance form to the post office if she was Willing to  purchase an OIC policy. It has been further mentioned that the post office commit take risk of life and unforeseen events resulting  in sudden death of depositor.

O.P. No.-3 Oriental Insurance Company has also filed his w.s. on 14-09-2009 with prayer to dismiss the complaint with Cost.  It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the complaint petition is not maintainable  in the eye of law. It has been further mentioned that the complainant has neither any right nor any cause of action against this o.p. The allegation of issuance of policy has been denied in the w.s. It has been further mentioned that there was no any proposal form for accidental of Life Insurance policy was filled by the applicant in the case of his mother’s death in the office of oriental insurance company and Oriental Insurance Company has not accepted any such type of  claim form from the complainant and as such he has not issued any policy bond in favour of the applicant. It has been further mentioned and allegation and relief sought in the complaint petition is completely manufactured.

No evidence has been adduced on behalf of either party.

Heard Learned Lawyer for the parties Learned lawyer for o.p No.-3 denied for issuance of policy bond whereas Learned  lawyer for o.p No. 1 &2 has submitted that no deduction  has been made from the account of the Late Tetri Devi. He has further submitted that in the complaint petition that date of death of Tetri Devi has been mentioned as 12-07-2007. He further further  submits that as per annexure-4 death certificate of the complainant’s mother  Tetri Devi  died on 12-08-2007. So, there is contradiction  on the point of date of death of Late Tatri Devi in the annexure filed on behalf of  complainant he further submits that there is neither policy bond  nor acceptance  letter no. There is paper regarding insurance.

 The complainant has neither filed any policy bond nor acceptance letter before form in proof of his allegation. No paper regarding insurance has been filed on his behalf. It has been further mentioned in the complaint petition that on 10-05-2007 Tetri Devi has purchased the policy bond. The complainant has filed coverage page of  passbook of Tetri Devi annexure-3. On perusal of the same It transpires that on 10-05-2007 there is no deduction from her account.

The complainant has alleged in his complaint petition that Tetri Devi died on  12-07-2007. On perusal of photocopy of death certificate annexure-4, it transpires  that  she died on 12-08-2007. Photocopy of postmortem report, annexure-4  also shows that postmortem of Tetri devi was conducted  on 13-08-2007, So there is contradiction on the point of death of Late Tetri Devi between complaint petition and annexure filed on behalf of complainant.

On the basis  of above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant has completely failed to established his allegation mentioned in complaint petition and the complaint petition is liability to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the claim petition is dismissed without cost. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.