APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:     23^rd  NOVEMBER   2016

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 13.08.2015, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 334/2011, Reena Devi vs. Department of Posts, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 28.08.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hazipur, in  Consumer Complaint No. 15/2010, filed by the complainant/present respondent, dismissing the complaint, was set aside.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that late Ajay Singh, husband of the complainant Reena Devi, obtained a postal life insurance policy from the Department of Posts and deposited the first instalment of premium of Rs. 735/- for which, a receipt was issued.  The sum insured under the policy was Rs. 3 lakhs.  However, the insured died on 15.09.2009 due to heart attack and thereafter, the complainant approached the post office to get the claim under the policy on 16.12.2009, but her claim was rejected by the OP/petitioner on the ground that the insurance proposal had not been accepted till the date of death of the deceased.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay the sum insured of Rs. 3 lakhs alongwith other benefits and interest @ 12% on the actual amount and also to direct  the OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.      The OP/petitioner contested the complaint by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they admitted that the husband of the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 735/- as first premium in post office Rasulpur, Pursotham, but the case was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices for their approval.  Since the competent authority had not approved the policy, the claim had been rightly repudiated. 

4.      The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, dismissed the consumer complaint vide their order dated 28.08.2011, in which they upheld the version given by the Department of Post.  Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission accepted the appeal and gave directions to the OPs to pay 35% of the sum assured i.e. Rs. 1,05,000/- only with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of information of the death given to the OPs i.e. 16.12.2009 within two months of passing the order.  Being aggrieved against this order, the OP/Department of Posts is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition. 

5.      It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim had been rightly repudiated by their Department because the policy in question was not approved by the competent authority before the death of the deceased.  The complaint, therefore, had been rightly dismissed by the District Forum and the said order should have been upheld by the State Commission.

6.      I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

7.      The facts brought on record make it clear that the deceased husband of  the complainant applied for  postal life insurance policy of the  Postal Department for an assured sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and the first quarterly premium of Rs. 735/- was also deposited by the life assured.  The deceased died on 15.09.2009, i.e. 2½ months after the deposit of the first premium with the Department.  It has, however, not been explained anywhere as to  why the necessary approval was not granted by the competent authority of the Department of Posts in accepting the proposal.  Before the State Commission, a document was presented stating that the acceptance of proposal could be made within 90 days under some Rule 22, but the State Commission found that the said document was applicable for those proposers, who were employees/service holders with some concern, but it did not deal with the general proposers.  The State Commission rightly observed that since no time period had been mentioned anywhere for the acceptance of proposal after the payment of first premium, the benefit of doubt had to go in favour of the complainant.  The State Commission, therefore, granted 35% of the sum assured to the complainant with 6% interest, because death had taken place within one year of taking the said policy.           I do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the said order, which may require any modification in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 

          This Revision Petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.