BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.120/2008 AGAINST C.C.No.40/2007 DISTRICT FORUM-I, VISKHAPATNAM
Between:
Smt.P.Bhavani, W/o.N.Premanandam
Hindu, aged 38 years,
Working as Sub Registrar,
Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam Dt. Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. Principal Chief Post Master General, A.P.Circle,
Hyderabad-500 001.
2. Deputy Divisional Manager, PLI, AP Circle,
Hyderabad-500 001.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Vizianagaram Division, Vizianagaram (PO & Dist.)
4. The Superintendent of Post Office,
Head Post office, Visakhapatnam-I. Respondents/
Opposite parties.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.P.Madhusudana Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents:- Mr.Vasireddy Vinod Kumar.
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
(Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***
This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum assailing the order of the District Forum that dismissed her complaint.
The facts of the case are briefly as follows:
The complainant is the wife of late N.Premanandam, who expired on 23-6-2005 while working as Sub Post Master, Poosaparti Rega (SO) Vizianagaram District. He got his life insured till the age of 60 years for an assured sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the opposite parties and paid the first premium of Rs.2,475/- on 8-5-2005 which was received by the field office of PLI Vizianagaram on the same day. The 2nd opposite party issued a letter dated 6-7-2005 stating that the insurance was accepted on 9-5-2005. After the death of her husband on 23-6-2005, the complainant made an application to the respondents and the second respondent by letter dated 4-9-2006 regretted the death of the insured and stated that the proponent expired on 23-6-2005 before acceptance of the proposal for his PLI policy. The complainant submitted that by letter dated 6-7-2005 the respondents stated that they accepted the proposal and now rejecting the claim was quite contradictory and hence approached the District Forum.
The fourth opposite party filed a counter that the proposal by late N.Premanandam was taken on 8-5-2005 but the said proposal was not accepted till 6-7-2005 as the concerned authorities after following all the formalities accepted the proposal and communicated the acceptance of the proposal with retrospective effect from 9-5-2005. By the date of issuing the said letter, the opposite parties have no knowledge of the death of the insured and as such the letter communicating the acceptance was dispatched but could not be served. The acceptance of the proposal was made on 6-7-2005 i.e. subsequent to the death of the insured and hence the acceptance was void under law and thus though the acceptance was made with retrospective effect the contract of insurance could be concluded only on 6-7-2005. They further submitted that since the contract was not concluded legally the opposite parties were not liable to pay the policy amount and the rejection of the claim was therefore in accordance with law.
In support of her case, the complainant filed her own affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A5. The opposite parties on the other hand filed affidavit of opposite party No.4 and relied upon documents marked as Ex.B1.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum came to the conclusion that though the letter conveying the acceptance of the insurance proposal mentioned the date of acceptance as 09-5-2005, which is clearly prior to the death of the insured, in as much as the date of letter communicating the acceptance was 6-7-2005 and therefore the said date will only have to be construed as the date of acceptance rendering the acceptance as subsequent to the death knocking the very bottom of the insurance contract or making the insurance contract illusory. In conformity with such finding, the District Forum did not see any merits in the complaint and therefore dismissed the same.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed this appeal chiefly contending that when the date of acceptance was clearly spelt out in the letter conveying the acceptance though the letter was subsequent to the death in as much as the date of acceptance mentioned in the said letter was prior to the death, the insurance contract had come into existence even before the death and as a result the complainant became eligible to claim insurance benefits in the wake of the death of the insured. But the District Forum lost sight of this clear position in favour of the complainants, they contended.
Heard.
The point that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
2. To what result?
The essential point that falls for consideration is whether the District Forum was right in obliterating the distinction between the date of acceptance on one hand and the date of letter conveying the acceptance on the other to treat them as one and the same and whether the District Forum was right in further holding that even after the acceptance by the insurance company, perhaps labouring under the impression that the said acceptance would only amount to a counter proposal, the conclusion of the contract failed for want of counter acceptance by the insured as he died by the time he received the letter from the insurance company conveying its acceptance?
Most of the facts in this case are not at all in dispute. Actually the insurance premium was accepted from the insured on 8-5-2005. He died on 23-6-2005. The opposite party conveyed its acceptance through a letter dated 6-7-2005 wherein it specifically fixed the date of acceptance as 9-5-2005. The above facts are not at all in dispute. In fact they are facts admitted in the pleadings of both sides. The District Forum thought that the date of the letter should be treated as date of acceptance. This is totally wrong for the simple reason that the opposite party consciously fixed the date of acceptance in its letter marked as Ex.A3. In fact the opposite party is clothed with such power as is evident from Regulation No.19(b) which is marked as Ex.B1 on behalf of the opposite party itself. So when such power is there, it is absolutely unwarranted for the District Forum to think that the opposite party never intended to give its acceptance with retrospective effect as it actually did as per Ex.A3. So the view taken by the District Forum is contrary not only to the express provisions of the regulations governing the scheme but also the dicta contained in II (2007) CPJ 143 in LIFE INSURNACE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. BHOOMIKABEN & ORS.which relied upon a judgement by the Supreme Court and the National Commission referred to therein. Apart form this line of approach, the District Forum fell into a further error in thinking that for the consummation of the contract, it was necessary for the insured to give his acceptance to Ex.A3 perhaps treating the purport of Ex.A3 as answering the description of a counter proposal. This is also absolutely unwarranted. Thus the District Forum upheld the repudiation on a wrong appreciation of law and therefore, it cannot be upheld.
As a result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and consequently allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of realization together with costs in a sum of Rs.1,000/-. As interest is awarded, we do not think that any further compensation can be granted. Time for compliance six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
MEMBER.
Sd/-
MEMBER.
JM Dt.17-12-2009
