Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 182.
Instituted on : 30.04.2018.
Decided on : 21.05.2019.
Geeta Wd/of Sh. Devender Singh, age 28 year, R/o VPO Kiloi Khas, Pana Maidan, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
……….Complainant.
Vs.
1 Agent/Office Incharge, Post Office, Kiloi Dopana, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
2 Rural Postal Life Insurance through its Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Office of S.S.P.O. Rohtak Division, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Raj Kumar Verma, Assistant Superintendent
for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:1. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s husband had taken a policy No. R-HY-EA-378770 dated 13.10.2014 from respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- having date of proposal dated 28.08.2014 and the complainant was appointed as nominee of policy holder and a premium receipt book was issued to the husband of the complainant and he had deposited the premium of said policy on 27.08.2014 amounting to Rs. 2603/- book No. 9581 and on 30.09.2014 amounting to Rs. 2603/- book No. 9533 and receipt No. 23. That on 06.10.2014, the husband of the complainant had expired and complainant informed the police and postmortem of the deceased was conducted at PGIMS, Rohtak. After that the complainant informed the opposite party regarding death of the policy holder and the complainant has duly applied for disbursement of the claim and submitted all the documents and receipts to the respondent. But till date claim amount has not been released to the complainant and respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 24.08.2017 has stated that insured had expired before his policy was accepted by the office of respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 has accepted two installments on behalf of the respondent No. 2 from the deceased and both the receipts were signed by the postmaster and was duly deposited in the office of opposite parties. That the deceased deposited all of his installments in time and there is no default till his death. That the husband of the complainant was not provided any pass book regarding the policy despite the installment were duly received by the respondent. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay amount Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its due till the actual disbursement as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the deceased purchased above said policy and the date of its maturity on 13.10.2019. It is further submitted that the concerned GDS BPM Kiloi has reported that no intimation regarding the death of policy holder had been received in his office. It is further submitted that the policy holder has to deposit the subsequent premium after the acceptance of policy. In this case, the policy was accepted on 13.10.2014, but the policy holder had expired on 06.10.2014. It is denied that the respondent No. 1 has accepted the advance premium with proposal on 27.08.2014 and issued provisional receipt. As per the instructions mentioned in the provisional receipt that the “Department shall accept no liability of claim in the event of the death of the proposer before final acceptance of proposal”. So, the said claim has been rejected by the competent authority vide letter dated 10.08.2017 which was conveyed to the claimant on dated 24.08.2017. It is further submitted that the complainant had approached to the higher authority of the department, but the said case has been rejected by the competent authority as per departmental rules. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.02.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on 06.03.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The main contention of the respondents is that the department has accepted the liability of the claim on dated 13.10.2014 whereas the policy holder had expired on 06.10.2014. So there is no liability of the respondent officials and as such the claim of the complainant was rejected by the competent authority vide letter No.PLI/ RPLI/Misc/2017-18 dated 24.08.2017 which is placed on record as Annexure-R2. As per respondents the first premium amounting to Rs.2603/- was paid by the complainant on dated 27.08.2014. Thereafter, the case was forwarded to the concerned authority and the concerned authority accepted the policy on 13.10.2014. The respondent placed on record the instructions of the Postal Life Insurance as Annexure-R1. As per instruction No.1: “In case the premium is paid for the first time, the premium is accepted provisionally subject to further acceptance of the proposal by the Chief Postmaster General concerned. The Department shall accept no liability of claim in the event of the death of the proposer before final acceptance of the proposal”.
6. We have also perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. As per the respondent the first premium was received as provisional subject to further acceptance of the proposal of the Chief Post Master General concerned. It has also been stated that the departments have no liability of the claim in the event of the death of the proposer before the final acceptance of the proposer, but in the present case, the respondent officials have received first premium on dated 27.08.2014 and subsequently they again received the second instalment for the monthly premium on 30.09.2014. Meaning thereby second instalment was received by the respondent after the acceptance of the proposal of the proposer by the concerned department. It has not been mentioned anywhere in the instructions that the second premium can be provisional. In the present case the second premium was paid on 30.09.2014 and the complainant died on 06.10.2014. Hence the contention of the opposite party that the policy was accepted on dated 13.10.2014 cannot be presumed. Moreover, there is deficiency in service on the part of concerned department that when the proposal was made by the proposer on 27.08.2014 and they have not received any confirmation in the month of August and September. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.150000/-(Rupees one lac fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 30.04.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
