<br /> 3. The 2nd opposite party filed written version, it is admitted that as per the Government Order MS No.10/06, the Government introduced Health Insurance Scheme for BPL families. The scheme was intended to grant insurance to persons below the poverty line. The total premium was Rs.99/-. As per the explanation of 2nd opposite party, the government has authorised Ist opposite party for implementation of the project. The brochure containing the details of the project, and the application form were distributed through Kudumbasree to all the families under BPL. The application form duly filled with Rs.33/- as premium amount should be paid by each family. From 14 wards in Velliyamattom Grama Panchayath, 2494 families joined the scheme and Rs.33/-each was paid and total amount of Rs.82,302/- was collected. Eight others who are not under BPL also paid Rs.450/- each which amounts to Rs.3,600/-. The total amount Rs.85,902/- was collected by the 3rd opposite party and received the same by the 2nd opposite party. The DD of the said amount Rs.85,902/- and also another DD of Rs.82,302/- which is the contribution of the 2nd opposite party, were sent to Ist opposite party through the District Co-ordinator, Kudumbasree, Idukki. But as per the letter No.38211/B2/06 dated 19/09/2006 of the Government, the Co-ordinator Kudumbasree, Idukki District requested to return the DD given to Ist opposite party . As per the request, both the DDs for Rs.82,302/- and Rs.85,902/- were returned to 2nd opposite party. The Panchayath has deposited the contribution of the Panchayath in plan fund account as chelan No.619 in Head of Account 8448-00-109-93-03. The consumers beneficiary fund Rs.85,902/- was deposited in the account of the Panchayath. The Govt. has not given any direction to the Panchayath about that amount. No identity card was issued by the Govt. to persons joined in the insurance policy. The project was not completely implemented by the Govt. So the 2nd opposite party is not able to give any benefit by this project. So the petition may be dismissed.<br /> 4. The 3rd opposite party also filed written version. As per the order of the Government dated 13.01.2006, the Government introduced ‘Arogyasree Insurance Project” for the people under BPL. The Government authorised Ist opposite party for implementing the said policy. As per the Government Order, the premium amount was Rs.99/-. The same should contribute in the ratio 1:1:1, by State Govt, Panchayath and the consumer beneficiary respectively. The contribution of each beneficiary should pay to the Kudumbasree Community Development Society. The Village Extension Officer who is the Member Secretary of the Community Development Society of Velliyamattom Grama Panchayath, collected Rs.33/- each from 2494 families under BPL, and collected Rs.450/- from 8 other families. The total collected amount Rs.85,902/- was paid to the Secretary, Grama Panchayath and the list was also given. The 3rd opposite party completed his responsibility as per the Government Order and the Government has not taken final decision about the project. So there is no deficiency from the part of the opposite party. The Govt. Order is also produced.<br /> 5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> 6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 to R7 marked on the side of the opposite parties. <br /> 7. The POINT :- The complainant and his family joined in the Arogyasree General Insurance Project put forwarded by the Government for helping the poor. The Government implemented the project through the opposite parties. The premium amount was collected by the 3rd opposite party and forwarded through the 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party who is the insurance company. The wife of the complainant was admitted in Chazhikattu Hospital, Thodupuzha for her delivery during the insurance period. After the treatment, the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party for insurance amount, but they repudiated the same stating that the policy is not existing. Ext.P1 is the receipt received from the 2nd opposite party for the premium amount paid by the complainant for Rs.450/-. Ext.P2 is the Brochure issued by Ist opposite party describing the policy conditions. Ext.P3 is the Treatment Certificate issued from Chazikattu Hospital, Thodupuzha to the complainant’s wife. Ext.P4(series) is the bills produced by the complainant for the treatment of his wife. Exts.P1 to P4 series are admitted by the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> As per the version filed by the Ist opposite party, they did not issue any policy to the complainant. Ist opposite party is a stranger to the contract. This opposite party made a proposal to the State of Kerala. The proposal was not finally accepted by the State of Kerala. As per the law of insurance no risk was to be assumed unless the entire premium amount is recovered and no rebate in premium amount was to be allowed by the insurer, since there is prohibition in the insurance Act. DW1 is the Manager of Ist opposite party. He deposed that no policy was issued by them, no premium is collected by them. The proposal was not recognised by Government of Kerala because it is a private insurance company. The Central government has not allowed to sign the undertaking. So they avoided the project. Ext.P2 was not distributed by them. The same was distributed by 3rd opposite party. The Ext.P1 bill is also given by the 2nd opposite party and not the Ist opposite party. As per Ext.P2 the 6th condition says that the policy will be implemented only when the identity card is issued to the complainant by the Ist opposite party. The Ist opposite party did not issue the same because they did not receive the premium amount. So we think that there is no deficiency in the part of Ist opposite party.<br /> The 2nd opposite party admitted that they collected the premium amount through the 3rd opposite party as per Ext. R1 Government Order. Exts.R2 and R3 are the copies of the DDs taken of Rs.82,302/- of SBT and of Rs.85,902/- of Union Bank of India respectively. Both the DDs are taken in the name of Ist opposite party. Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) are the letters from the District Co-ordinator, Kudumbasree, Idukki, addressing to the 2nd opposite party as per the Government Order. Ext.R5 is the copy of the Day Book of the Treasury showing the deposit of Rs.82,302/- in the Thodupuzha Sub Treasury. Ext.R6 is the copy of the pass book showing the deposit of Rs.86,260/- in Velliyamattom Service Co-operative Bank. Ext.R7 is the letter from Secretary of Government to the Executive Director, Kudumbasree, Thriuvananthapuram stating to keep the DD in the name of Ist opposite party in Local Self Government institutions until further orders. As per 3rd opposite party, they have collected the amount from the complainant and forwarded it to 2nd opposite party. It means that premium collected from the complainant is keeping by 2nd opposite party as per the directions from Government. No intimation was given to complainant about the same. No policy is issued to them. The policy was collected on 25.02.2006 and the complainant is entitled to get the insurance amount as per the policy. Collecting the premium amount from the poor people, after giving attractive advertisement and keeping the same without paying the same in Insurance Company, is a gross deficiency in the part of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. No service is hired from the part of opposite party 1. So the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. But the opposite parties 2 and 3 are not the insurance company and so we cannot direct them to give the insurance amount to the complainant. So we direct the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to give back the premium amount paid by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000 /- for mental agony and sufferings caused. Rs.3,000/- can be given as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1,500/- for the cost of the petition.<br /> As a result the petition is partially allowed. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are directed to return the premium amount paid by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.8,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- for the cost of the petition from the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2008<br />