DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 447
Instituted on: 29.10.2018
Decided on: 26.10.2023
Inderjit Singh son of Shri Kirpal Singh resident of 495, Street No.8, Kishanbagh Colony, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur Tehsil and District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. DDM (PLI), Punjab Circle, Post Office, GPO Building, Ist Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 through its Director.
2. Head Post Master, Department of Posts, Head Office, Court Road, Sangrur.
….Opposite parties.
QUORUM
JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT
KANWALJEET SINGH : MEMBER
For the complainant : Shri Sparsh Chhibber,Adv.
For the Ops : Shri S.S.Randhawa, Adv.
ORDER BY
KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
1. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant obtained two policies one named as Yugal Suraksha bearing no.PB-YS-146825-CS and date of commencement was 02.11.2010 and another policy Santosh bearing no.PB-146200-CS for the term of 20 years with a sum assured of Rs.Five Lac each and the date of commencement was 25.09.2010. In policy of Yugal Suraksha the premium was Rs.2153/- per month and in another policy Santosh the premium was Rs.1975/- per month. The complainant deposited regular installments of both the policies for five years i.e. 60 months. Due to financial constrains of the complainant he wrote a letter dated 12.10.2015 to OP no.2.The said policies were got converted for a sum assured from Rs.Five lacs to Rs.Two lacs payable in the said period. Further installments are to be adjusted by adjusting the excess amount deposited earlier during the period of first five years. The OP no.1 adjusted the future installments in one policy no.PB-146200-CS and future premium was fixed as Rs.417/- per month after adjusting the excess amount already deposited by the complainant. However, the Ops have not adjusted the earlier excess amount deposited by complainant as premium in policy bearing no.PB-YS-146825-CS and started taking future premium treating the policy as new one by ignoring all the previous excess amount. The complainant visited the office of OP no.1 and wrote a number of letters to Ops . OP no.2 vide letter dated 05.08.2016 had refused to adjust the above said excess amount in policy No.PB-YS-146825-CS by giving the reference letter dated 20.0-6.2016 issued by the Directorate Postal Life Insurance, Department of Posts. Complainant under the RTI Act 2005, had sought information vide letter dated 26.10.2017, OP no.2 in the reply dated 22.11.2017 had informed the complainant that the excess adjustment of premium had already been approved by the circle office. The premium in the system will be corrected and it will be informed to the complainant but the adjustment has not been made in the policy in question regarding its premium in the system and now the OP no.2 is forcing the complainant to pay Rs.863/- as premium without adjusting previous excess amount. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 23.06.2018 to the Ops and made a request to charge the amount after adjustment of excess amount deposited by the complainant. Instead of charging excess amount of Rs.863/- , the complainant visited the office of OP no.2 to adjust the paid premium amount in the policy in question but the OP no.2 has flatly refused to hear the genuine request of the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and lastly prayed the Ops may kindly be directed to settle the premium amount after adjustment of excess deposited amount in policy in question for the first five years with the office of OP no.2 and to pay Rs.50000/- for mental tension and agony and to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses and lastly prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted.
2. Upon notice Ops appeared and filed written reply and taking preliminary objections that the present complaint neither maintainable nor the complainant has a locus standi to file the present complaint. Reply on merits, Ops pleaded that the complainant had purchased two different insurance policies from OP no.2. later on after the expiry of five years, the complainant in September 2015 moved an application for conversion of the policy regarding sum assured from Rs.Five Lacs to Two Lacs. OP no.1 has reduced the sum assured from Five Lacs to Two Lacs of the policy bearing no. PB-146200-CS and also fixed the revised premium from Rs.1975/- to Rs.417/- per month. Another policy Yugal Suraksha the premium of the said policy was Rs.2153/- per month, the term of the policy was twenty years and the sum assured of the said policy was Rs.Five Lacs. There was two live persons were insured one of the complainant and another was the wife of complainant. The complainant moved an application dated 12.10.2015 to OP no.2 for the conversion of the policy from Rs. Five Lacs to Rs.Two Lacs. On receiving the said application, the OP no.2 forwarded the same to OPno.1 for necessary action, OP no.1 had written a letter dated 20.10.2015 to the SPO, Sangrur that necessary action was taken and after conversion the sum assured from Rs.Five Lacs to Rs. Two Lacs and revised premium as Rs.863/- instead of Rs.2153/- per month. The OP no.1 vide his letter dated 21.12.2015 had cleared that the premium of policy of complainant had already been adjusted as per postal computer system. The OP no.2 again forwarded the application dated 28.01.2016 to OP no.1vide letter dated 2.2.2016. The OPno.1had further written a letter dated 11.02.2016 to the OPno.2. OP no.2 informed the complainant that the circle office, Chandigarh had sanctioned manually premium as about Rs.415/- and the necessary correction in this respect will be corrected in the system. The complainant was again informed by OP no.2 vide letter dated 21.05.2018 to pay the premium at the rate of Rs.863/- per month for the period of 1.11.2015 to 31.05.2018. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The representation of the complainant which was submitted by him with the Ops were forwarded to the competent authority for the settlement from time to time. Insurant was informed to pay the premium as per the instructions of department. The remaining allegations are denied by the Ops and lastly prayed the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. To counter the reply of Ops,the complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply. The contentions of the rejoinder are similar to the complaint. So, the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and some documents which are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-26 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties have produced documents i.e Ex.Ops/1 to Ex.Ops/12 and self declaration of Charanjit Singh Superintendent of Post Office, Sangrur Ex.Ops/13. Similarly Ex.Ops/14 self declaration of Shri Ranjit Singh,head Post Master, Head Post Office , Sangrur and produced Ex.Ops/15 to Ex.Ops/17 and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.
7. Now, come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
8. During arguments averments of the learned counsel for the Ops are that without revival of a policy in question, complainant is not entitled for adjustment of deposited amount and reduced the premium in the policy. Further, learned counsel for Ops more forced on Ex.C-2 of clause 6 and clause 8 of the terms and conditions of the policy in question. Clause 6 provides lapsing of policy and clause 8 described the revival of discontinue policies. This Commission has considered that it is not disputed that the complainant availed two policies first as Yugal Suraksha and another is Santosh. During arguments the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the Santosh policy has not dispute. It is writ large on the file, reply on merits at para 3 of Ops specifically pleaded that after the expiry of five years policy no.PB-146200-CS, the complainant had moved an application for reduction of policy sum assured from Rs.Five lacs to Rs.Two lacs. The OP no.1 had reduced the sum assured from Five lacs to Two lacs and fixed the premium of Rs.1975/- to Rs.417/- per month. From the perusal of Ex.C-4 a letter dated 4.9.2015 issued by Deputy Divisional Manager office of Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle Chandigarh to the complainant. It transpires from Ex.C_4 that old premium rate was Rs.1975/- and revised premium rate was mentioned as Rs.417/-. This commission has the considered view that Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7, Ex.C-10, Ex.C-12, Ex.C-18 the complainant moved number of applications dated 12.10.2015, 30.11.2015, 01.06.2016, 02.06.2016, 21.10.2016 , 25.04.2017 and 26.05.2018 to the official of Ops. However, Ex.C-13 the complainant moved an application dated 26.10.2017 to OP no.2 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In reply officials of OPno.2 supplied the information under RTI Act with regard to policy number PB-YS-146825-CS and admitted at serial No.5 that “ adjustment of premium has been approved manually by Circle Office. Further OP no.2 stated at serial no.6 in the reply “ for correctness of premium in system in respect of above said policy, ticket has been raised by the office on 15.11.2017. After resolve the issue in system as well, the premium will be informed to the insurant accordingly. We feel that OPs has miserably failed to disclose the amount paid by the complainant as premium in the policy in dispute. We feel that the complainant is waiting since 15.11.2017 the response from the official of Ops with regard to how much premium was paid by the complainant in the policy in dispute. The complainant has moved a representation to OP no.2 to adjust the premium earlier five years installments paid by complainant of Rs.2153/-X Rs.60= Rs.1,29,180/- in policy in PB-YS-146825-CS . We feel that one side Ops pleaded in reply on merits at para 3 page 2 from the bottom that “ the complainant has not paid any premium since November 2015 till date , therefore the above said policy has become lapsed. On the other hand, as per Ex.C21 dated 21.05.2018 and Ex.C-23 dated 23.07.2018 OPno.2 issued letters to complainant to pay premium at the rate of Rs.863/- per month for the period of 1.11.2015 to 31.05.2018. From this angel, the stand of OP no.2 itself contradictory. This Commission has examined the utmost important document which is Ex.C-26 to trace out the veracity of truth “ whether the first five years premium paid by the insurant monthly Rs.2153/- X60 is liable for adjustment?. As per Ex.C-24 OP no.2 wrote a letter dated 3.4.2018 to OP no.1 and pleaded at para No.2 that the premium paid by the insurance for the first five years before conversion of PLI policy in question is required to be adjusted manually. Further, pleaded from bottom “ sum assured from Rs.Five Lacs to Rs.Two Lacs had already been reduced in the NIC system, before migration without adjustment of the premium paid by the insurant in the first five years”. It transpires from document Ex.C-26 letter issued on 3.7.2017 by the Directorate of Postal Life Insurance, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, government of india ChankyaPuri, Post Office complex, New Delhi to all Deputy Divisional Managers( PLI) it is stated in the letter “ that the higher paid premium up to the date of commutation is to be adjusted”. To implement the instructions, Deputy Divisional Manager ( PLI) Chandigarh issued a letter dated 7.7.2017 to Superintendent of Post office, Sangrur and stated in the letter Directorate ( Supra) that it has been clarified the point for commutation of Yugal Suraksha Policy after lock up period and adjustment of excess premium.” A man can lie, but document can’t ”.
9. Per contra , as per document Ex.OP-9 issued on 21.07.2016 by Deputy Divisional Manager, (PLI) Punjab Circle, Chandigarh to Superintendent Post Office , Sangrur the relevant portion is reproduced as under “ the excess premium received prior to date of conversion may neither be refunded nor adjusted in future. Premium as the risk on the both insurants was being covered earlier, under Yugal Suraksha policy. To solve the issue this Commission has examined minutely document Ex.C-9.
1) in case of divorce etc. , the Yugal Suraksha Policy can be converted into endowment insurance policy. We feel that the instructions issued letter dated 20.06.2016 Ex.C-9 was issued to Chief Post Master,General Maharashtra Circle. However, facts of the complaint , both the parties did not press any issue of divorce case etc. In this Peculier circumstances of the case, this Commission has no hesitation to hold that the instructions as per Ex.C-9 are not applicable in the present complaint. We have the considered view that Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-26 letters issued by the Directorate Postal Life Insurance Delhi are contradictory itself. We feel that the “doctrine of estoppel” is fully applicable for the Ops with regard to ExC-25 and Ex.C-26. It is further mentioned in letter dated 24.10.2017 which is Ex.C-27 of Deputy Divisional Manager ( PLI) Punjab Circle, Chandigarh the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
“ in pursuance of PLI Directorate letter no.29-29/2015-LI dated 09.08.2017 Deputy Divisional Manager ( PLI) directed to the superintendent of post office, Sangrur to convey the approval of the competent authority for adjustment of premium on manual basis of PLI PB-YS-14685 CS due to reduction of sum assured from Rs.Five Las to Rs.two Lacs as Rs.417 instead of Rs.863/-. It is well settled principle of law is that “ Admission is the best evidence”. There is no need to prove it by cogent evidence. It is incumbent upon the Ops to use the same yard stick as they used in policy no.PB-14685-CS to adjust the earlier five years installments paid premium of policy in question of the complainant. Moreover the postal offices in the country are the custodian of the hard earned money of the innocent consumers. Public deposited their monthly saving money into the post office through the post offices policies to save their funds. General Public has a phenomena in the mind to utilize their saving amount during old age period or they can spend their money on their medical treatment/ hardship time etc. ”
10. It transpires from Ex.OP-5 letter dated 15.12.2015 issued by Superintendent Post Office, Sangrur to DDM ( PLI) the Chief PGM ( Punjab Circle) Chandigarh that insurant is demanding for adjustment of surplus amount paid by him till maturity. He had already paid a gross amount of Rs.1,29180/- ( Rs.2153X60) and the new premium will be Rs.1,55340/- ( Rs.863X180) till maturity. The total of both amount become Rs.1,29,180/- plus Rs.1,55,340/- = Rs.2,84520/-. The Insurant is now demanding to adjust the surplus amount of Rs.84520/- . However, another letter Ex.OP-7 dated 2.2.2016 mentioned third line from the bottom of the letter ( supra) that the new sum assured is Rs.2Lacs which is excess of Rs.84520/- . It seems that the premium of first five years had not been adjusted in R/O PLI policy no. PB-YS-146825-CS. In this juncture, we feel that It is crystally clear from the factum of the case that the Ops committed deficiency in service qua the complainant.
11. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint in hand and with careful analysis of the evidence available on record, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to settle the premium amount after adjustment of the excess paid premium amount of Rs.1,29,180/- ( Rs.2153X60) had already been deposited for the first five years by the complainant in policy in question. Further, Ops shall pay a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. This order be complied with by OPs within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
13. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
Announced.
October 26, 2023
( Kanwaljeet Singh) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)
Member President
BBS/-
