BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. K.V.H.Prasad B.A.LL.B., President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Monday the 15th day of October, 2007
C.C.No. 72//07
V. Jyothi, W/o. V. Sekhar,
H.No. 21/468, Bandimetta, Adoni, Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
1. Post Master, Madavaram S.O,
Madavaram Post Office, Madavaram, Kurnool District.
2. Supertendent of Post Offices
Kurnool Division, Kurnool.
3. Assistant Director East Post Master General,
Kurnool Region, Kurnool.
4. Post Master,
Adoni Head Post Office, Adoni. … Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.Y.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant, and Sri.M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 and opposite party No.3 called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
C.C.No.72/2007
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S. 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay Rs.1 lakh with 18% interest per annum, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint and any other relief or releifs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the Complainant is the wife of V. Shekar who insured his life with opposite parties vide policy bearing No. R-AP-KR-EA- 139545, dated 25.3.2004 for Rs.1 lakh and nominated the complainant as his nominee. On 27.2.2005 the complainant’s husband died, as nominee the complainant made an application before the opposite parties for assured amount, but opposite party No.2 rejected the claim and sanctioned Rs.5,373/- to the complainant . As per the pamphlet issued by opposite parties the premiums to the policy can be made at any post office in India within stipulated time and after expiry the premiums can be paid with interest and the policy comes into force. The complainants husband paid premiums from 4.4.2004 to 1.5.2005 an amount of Rs.3,150/- on 18.4.2005 at RTC complex post office, Adoni and same was credited into the policy by the Post Master, hence, it remains accepted and there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the rejection of complainants claim is amounting deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
3. In support of their case the complainants relied on the following documents viz., (1) postal Life Insurance policy along with prospectus, (2) office copy of legal notice dated 3.4.2007, along with postal receipts and acknowledgements, (3) claim rejection letter dated 17.4.2007 and (4) death certificate, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite parties and replied to the interrogatories of opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1,2, & 4 appeared through their standing counsel and written version was filed by opposite party No.2, opposite party No.1 and 4 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.3 remained absent through out the case proceedings.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits V.Shekar taking a postal Life Insurance Policy bearing No. R-AP-KR-EA- 139545 dated 25.3.2004 for Rs.1 lakh and the said policy was taken showing himself as a resident of Madhavaram Village, as per the rules pertaining to the said policy the policy holder has to pay his premium at a specified post office where he has taken the policy. In this case the complainants husband paid premium at Madhavaram village sub post office. As such he has to regularly pay the premiums at Madhavarm sub post office only. If the premiums are not paid the policy shall be treated as lapsed. In the present case the insured paid Rs.3,150/- for the months of April, 2004 to January 2005 on 18.4.2005 at RTC complex sub post office Adoni, where as the insured has to pay the said premium at the specified post office i.e., sub post office Madhavaram only. If the policy holder wants to pay the premium in any sub post office other then which was originally adopted at the time of taking policy he has to take prior permission from the Post Master General. However, there is a provision for revival of lapsed policies as per terms printed over leaf on the Insurance policy bond. The insured has to pay the entire outstanding premiums along with interest at the specified post office and inform the same to Post Master General through the specified post office along with certificates of continued good health in the prescribed paper signed by the Civil Surgeon or Assistance Civil Surgeon, a declaration of good health by the insured himself along with a certificate from the employer of the insured to the effect that the insured had availed leaves on medical grounds during the period of the lapsed policy. In the present case the insured did not adopt to follow the above procedure and to seek for revival of the policy, he further paid Rs.1,908/- on 13.7.2005 towards premium for the months of February 2005 till July 2005 at RTC complex sub post office itself and after the demise of the insured the premium for the month of August, 2005 was made by the complainant on 28.2.2005, thus the said unilateral payments by the insured without seeking revival of the policy would not by itself lead to revival of the already lapsed policy for the violation of policy conditions. Hence, the Post Master General , Kurnool Region on the claim of the complainant rejected the claim and sanctioned for the refund of premium amount of Rs.5,373/- towards the above said policy after the lapsation of policy. The terms and conditions of the policy printed in the policy document and in the pass book are quite clear and unambiguous and the complainant misunderstood the said terms and interpreted the conditions printed in the pamphlet with confusion. Hence, the claim of the complainant is not entertain able and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) Xerox copy of premium pass book of deceased V.Shekar, (2) proposal form submitted by V.Shekar and (3) letter dated 12.12.2006 of Assistant Director, Post Master General Kurnool, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 in reiteration of their written version avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B3 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite parties caused interrogatories to the complainant and replied to the interrogatories of complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service ?.
8. It is the case of the complainant that she is the wife/nominee of V.Shekhar who insured his life with opposite parties vide policy bearing No. R-AP-KR-EA- 139545 (Ex.A1). The policy holder paid all the premiums and on 20.7.2005 the policy holder died. On the claim preferred by the complainant it was repudiated by the opposite parties vide Ex.A3. The Ex.A3 is the letter dated 17.4.2007 of opposite party No.2, it says that the insurant has taken policy from Madhavaram post office, and paid subsequent premiums at RTC complex, post office, Adoni without obtaining prior permission for payment of subsequent premiums in other
than the post office where the policy was obtained and the insurant without observing the due procedure for revival of the policy from Post Master General, Kurnool credited subsequent premiums. Hence, the opposite parties submits that the complainant is not entitled to the assured amount.
9. Admittedly, the policy holder V.Shekar obtained a postal life Insurance policy from Madhavaram post office and a policy bond vide Ex.A1 and premium pass book vide Ex.B1 was issued to the deceased V.Sekhar. The opposite parties submits that the policy holder without observing the terms and conditions overleaf in the policy bond and pass book paid premium at RTC complex post office, Adoni and without taking prior permission from Post Master General, Kurnool which is must as per terms and conditions of said policy . Hence, the policy is in lapsed condition for non payment of premium and they are not liable to pay assured amount. This plea of opposite party cannot be accepted as the
RTC complex, post office, Adoni accepted the premiums of the policy holder as endorsed in Ex.B1 without any hesitation, the person who received premiums should take due care by diligence, where certain terms and conditions are prescribed for lapsed policies, before accepting the premiums of the policies issued by other post offices and when it is not done the said acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. It is for the RTC complex post office, Adoni to take proper precautions before accepting the premiums of lapsed policy and for the said mistake of opposite parties the complainant cannot be founded fault with and suffer especially when the opposite parties are in advantageous position of having knowledge of all the terms and conditions of all the policies or at least explain the same to the insured/deceased when he approaches for payment of premiums. The complainant is left with no other option except to abide to the terms and conditions even after payment of premiums by her husband and, which accompanied on the mistake committed by the opposite party No.4 crediting premiums on the lapsed policy of V.Shekar. Hence, the opposite parties can not rely on the terms and condition as they themselves are not duly following or relying on the so called terms and conditions by accepting premiums on the lapsed policy without proper revival of policy as per rules / instructions.
10. The opposite parties simply alleged that the deceased policy holder did not properly got his policy revived but on the other side the opposite party No.4 accepted the premiums of the deceased policy without proper revival and permission from Post Master General. It is for opposite party No.4 to look into matter when the policy holder approaches for payment of premium, to get the lapsed policy revived and after that only the opposite party No.4 has to accept the premiums and when once the premiums are accepted then the policy is automatically revived and it is for the opposite parties who have administrative control over opposite party No.4 to get the things done correctly from its subordinates when the policy holder was alive the premiums were accepted and when it comes for payment of assured amount the nominee can not be blamed and held responsible for not getting lapsed policy properly revived by the policy holder. Hence, when the premiums are accepted, then the policy is revived. For the acts of the employees the employer is vicariously liable, therefore the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the assured amount under the policy of the deceased V.Shekar to the complainant and as the opposite parties driven the complainant to the forum, the opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of the case.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the assured amount under the policy of V.Shekar bearing No.R-AP-KR-EA-139545 with 9 % interest per annum from the date of death of policy holder i.e. 27.2.2005 along with costs of Rs.2,000/- within a month of receipt of this order. In default, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the supra award amount with 12 % interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 15th day of October, 2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Postal Life Insurance Policy along
With prospectus.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice, dated 3.4.2007
along with postal receipts and acknowledgements.
Ex.A3. Claim rejection letter, dated 17.4.2007.
Ex.A4. Death Certificate.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Xerox copy of premium pass book of
deceased V. Shekar.
Ex.B2. proposal form submitted by V.Shekar/Insured.
Ex.B3. Letter, dated 12.12.2006 of Assistant
Director, Post Master General, Kurnool.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.Y. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
