This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 29-08-11 in the presence of Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for complainant and of Sri P. Sanath Kumar, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing bothsides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of CPA seeking the insured amount of Rs.90,000/-; Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony besides costs.
2. In brief the averments of the complaint are these:
One Konduru Anuradha wife of the complainant obtained RPLI policy bearing No.EA 255759 from the opposite party. The insured could not pay the premium in the months of March and April, 2005 within stipulated time. Subsequently, the insured obtained certificate from the Government Medical Officer and renewed the policy. The Postal authorities accepted the same, renewed the policy and received premiums upto April, 2006. The insured died subsequently. The complainant being a nominee claimed the policy amount by sending an application. The opposite parties on 10-12-08 sent a letter stating that the said policy was not renewed as good health certificate was not submitted and rejected the claim. Having accepted the subsequent premiums the opposite parties are liable to pay the insured amount. The opposite parties did not give any reply to the letter of the complainant dated 01-02-09. Not paying the insured amount amounted to deficiency of service.
3. The contention of the opposite parties in brief is hereunder:
The insured paid monthly premiums @ Rs.124/- from March, 2004 to April, 2005 for the policy bearing No.EA – 255759 for Rs.25,000/-. The insured failed to pay subsequent monthly premiums from May, 2005 onwards. As such the said policy became lapsed. The insured did not get the said policy revived by submitting a revival application along with good health certificate and good health declaration. The said policy thus became lapsed and the premium amounts paid so far were forfeited to the Government. Without getting the policy revived, the insured on 29-04-06 paid premium of 12 months i.e., from May, 2005 to April, 2006. The insured paid subsequent premiums intermittently upto 11-09-08. The complainant submitted an application for death claim payment on 23-09-08. The competent authority i.e., the 2nd opposite party examined the claim and noticed that the policy was lapsed under Rule 39 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules and the claim was rejected. However, the amounts paid by the insured after lapsing the policy i.e., from May, 2005 to September, 2008 was refunded vide sanctioned memo dated 11-12-08. The complaint is barred by time. The claim therefore be dismissed.
4. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- To what relief?
6. POINT No.3:- The insured died on 13-09-08 as seen from copy of death certificate (Ex.A-5). The complaint was filed on 10-08-09. Due to delay in representing the complaint it was numbered in the year 2011. The complaint was in time as it was filed on 10-08-09. Therefore we answer this point in favour of the complainant.
7. POINT No.1:- The complaint was silent regarding the assured amount. The policy number mentioned in cause of action para was EA 255759. The opposite parties accepted premiums without insisting for good health certificate. Ex.A-3 (xerox copy of insurance policy along with premium receipt) issued under Rural Postal Life Insurance were in the name of Pillutla Sridevi w/o Musalaiah. Ex.A-4 copy of passbook was also in the name of one Pillutla Sridevi.
8. Copy of the premium receipts revealed that the complainant is not regular in paying the installments. The opposite parties accepted the premiums without good health certificate and good health declaration of the insured. Having accepted the premiums it is not open to the opposite parties to contend that the insured did not submit good health certificate and good health declaration. The opposite parties are thus estopped from contending that the policy became lapsed.
9. According to the complaint the insured amount was Rs.90,000/-, while according to the opposite parties the insured amount was Rs.25,000/-. Exs.A-3 and A-4 did not pertain to the insured at all. In the absence of relevant documents the assured amount cannot be ascertained. Under those circumstances the claim of the complainant in our considered opinion is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.
10. POINT No.2:- In view of findings on point No.1 the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.
11. POINT No.4:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 3rd day of September, 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 10-12-08 | Copy of receipts (16) issued by opposite parties |
A2 | - | Copy of a letter sent by complainant to opposite parties |
A3 | - | Copy of Endowment assurance policy issued in the name of one Pillutla Sridevi by opposite parties |
A4 | | Copy of Rural postal life insurance premium passbook |
A5 | 18-09-08 | Copy of death certificate |
For opposite parties: NIL
PRESIDENT
