Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1495

POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.RAJESH AGRAWAL - Opp.Party(s)

SH.RAJEEV JAIN

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1495 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 18.07.2017 passed in C.C.No.63/2017 by District Commission, Chhatarpur)

 

1. POST MASTER,

    INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT,

    HEAD POST OFFICE, CHHATARPUR (M.P.)

 

2. MANAGER,

    CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE,

    POST & TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT,

    CHHATARPUR (M.P.)

 

3. DEPUTY DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

    OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,

    PARIMANDAL, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                   ….           APPELLANTS.

 

                       Versus

 

DR. RAJESH AGRAWAL,

S/O LATE SHRI LAKSHMAN DAS AGRAWAL,

R/O OPPOSITE MISSION HOSPITAL,

MAHOBA ROAD, CHHATARPUR (M.P.)                                                        ….           RESPONDENT.                                

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Ms. Pooja Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants.

           Respondent is present in person.

          

 

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on  06.06.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants-Post Office (hereinafter referred to as ‘post office’) is directed against the order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  Chhatarpur  (for   short   ‘District Commission’)   in

-2-

C.C.No.63/2017, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained a Postal Life Insurance Policy no. 167715-C on 02.06.1976 from the post office under which monthly premium was to be paid uptill May-2016. The complainant had paid regular monthly premium of Rs.74/- and paid last premium instalment in May-2016. When the complainant approached the post office regarding payment of maturity value of Rs.1,65,000/- in June-2016, the post office intimated the complainant that he is not entitled to sum assured and is entitled only to get Rs.1,04,836/- as surrender value. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties i.e. the post office, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite parties/post office resisted the complaint on the ground that the policy obtained by the complainant is a life time policy, under which the sum assured is payable only to legal representatives of the insured after his death and insured himself is not entitled to claim sum assured.  It is further submitted that Government of India through notification dated 21.01.2016 had made an amendment that the sum assured can be made payable to the insured after attaining the age of 80 years.  The

-3-

complainant, who is 71 years old is not entitled to receive the same.  The post office also submitted that the complainant did not convert the policy in order to obtain sum assured and therefore, the post office is only liable to pay surrender value to the complainant.

4.                The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties/post office to pay maturity value of Rs.1,65,000/- under the policy no. 167715-C within a period of one month, failing which the amount is directed to be paid with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 18.04.2017, till payment. In addition, compensation of Rs.5,000/- with another sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs is also awarded.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                The opposite parties/post office in their written arguments submitted that the subject policy was obtained by the complainant in the year 1976, when he was 30 years old.  The complainant had an opportunity to get the policy converted into ‘Endowment Insurance Policy’ but the complainant failed to do so. Therefore, as per policy terms and conditions, the complainant is entitled to receive sum assured only after attaining the age of 80 years subject to payment of regular premium.  The complainant had applied for sum assured before attaining the age of 80 years and in such circumstances, he is entitled to get surrender value of the policy only

 

-4-

as per policy terms and conditions and nothing more than that. The District Commission has ignored the important aspect that no maturity date is specified in the subject policy and has erred in passing the impugned order and allowed the complaint, which deserves to be dismissed.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that he had deposited entire premium amount uptill the month for which final premium was payable i.e. May-2016. Thereafter when he approached the opposite parties/post office regarding payment of maturity amount, the post office offered to pay surrender value only which is gross deficiency in service on their part.  He argued that the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order and this appeal is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

8.                The question which was to be addressed was whether the complainant is entitled to get maturity value under the subject policy, as per policy terms and conditions or not. The complainant/respondent in his affidavit dated 13.06.2017 has referred to ‘Postal Life Insurance Policy’ No.167715-C misapprehending “Till stipulated month of final payment or prior to death” with regard to ‘payment’, when it was meant for payment of premium amount.

9.                The District Commission ought to have particularized the relevant terms and conditions in order to reach the conclusion.  Though, the

-5-

District Commission has reproduced certain terms and conditions stipulated in ‘Postal Life Insurance Policy’ which is available on record, but has failed to denote the event/events on happening of which the sum assured has to become payable and also if there is provision for any maturity value.  The point source of the quantum of maturity value, as has been mentioned by the complainant/respondent, which is also specified in the impugned award, also requires to be ascertained.

10.              In view of the aforesaid discrepancy we are of a considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside.

11.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 10.07.2023.

12.              Record of the case be sent to the District Commission, at the earliest.

13.              All contentions of the parties are kept open. Parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence in support of their contentions, as and when directed by the District Commission, in the specified time frame.

14.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order taking into consideration all the aspects involved in the matter and on due consideration of discussion which is done above.

-6-

15.              The District Commission is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months, from the date of appearance of the parties.

16.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.  No order as to costs.

 

              (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)          (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                                 PRESIDENT                                         MEMBER