SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-payment of maturity amount on Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy in event of the death of the policy holder are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complainant in brief reveals that complainant’s wife namely Anita Das obtained a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy(RPLI) on dtd.25.03.2010. The policy was obtained through the Agent-cum-Branch Postmaster, Purosottampur(OP No.4). As per the policy Rs.150/- per month to be deposited with an assured amount of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, deceased policy holder has paid 40 monthly premiums and unfortunately expired on dtd.16.08.2013. It is revealed from the complaint petition that as deceased policy holder and his family members are illiterate and belongs to Below Poverty Line and taking such advantages OP-department is refusing to pay the assured amount of Rs.25,000/- rather intimated the present complainant to take only the premiums amounts deposited on the said account. It is also alleged that the OP-Department is denying the receipt of premium amount for the month of October-2011 and the copy said receipt including all the premium receipts are filed with the complaint. Such non-disbursement of assured amount gives immense mental agony to the complainant for which this complaint before the Forum with prayer to get back the assured amount of Rs.25,000/- along with compensation for Rs.25,000/- for mental agony.
3. Being noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. Md. Nayeem and filed written statement into the dispute in para wise reply and submitting the facts it is stated that in the present case the agent of the proposed policy is the Branch Postmaster,Purusottampur Branch Office(OP No.4). The actual monthly premium amount was collected from the policy holder is Rs.6040/-. The policy bond was not generated due to wrong submission of proposal form, hence the policy could not be supplied. It is averred that as per the postal life insurance policy(RPLI) Rules the proposer is responsible personally for information filled in the form correspective of whether the form is filled in his own hand or through the agent. As per Rule-7 of POLI for any inaccurate, wrong and misleading information given by the proposer the policy money result into cancellation and forfeiture of all money paid by the policy holder.(Attached as Annexure R/1). It is also averred that as the proposal was not complete in all respect, it resulted in the rejection of RPLI proposed. The defects in the proposal form found i.e. witness to declaration, female proposer declaration, medical certificate, witness to left hand thumb impression of the insurant were not done and further the premium amount collected Rs.151/- per month from April,2010 to June,2013 at Purusottampur Branch Office in account with Karilopatna Sub-office unauthorisedly. It is further averred that as the proposal was not accepted and rejected for the said reasons the premium collected towards the above RPLI proposed has been refunded to the claimant of the deceased vide the Office Letter No.LG27(D)(268) dtd. 16.04.2015(attached as Annexure-R/2). It is pleaded that on the reasons stated above, the Ops have not committed any willful delay or harassment to the insurant, so the question of paying any penalty or compensation to the insurant do not arise.
4. Heard, the submissions advanced by complainant and Ld. Counsel for Ops, verified and examined the documents filed by the parties. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant’s deceased wife namely Mrs. Anita Das obtained a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy(RPLI) under Purusottampur branch post office(OP No.4) by paying a monthly premium of Rs.151/-. It is also admitted that the assured value of the policy is for Rs.25,000/- and an amount of Rs.6040/- was collected or paid by the deceased policy holder. It is further admitted that OP-Deptt. by sending a letter intimated that the complainant is not entitled to receive the assured sum of policy as the policy was not accepted by the OP-Deptt., rather the complainant who is the husband of the deceased policy holder is only entitled to receive the total monthly premium paid amount to the tune of Rs.6040/- accordingly did not released the assured value to the complainant/claimant.
Complaint is filed for non-release of assured RPLI amount of Rs.25,000/- in the event of death of policy holder Smt. Anita Das. It is alleged that complainant, being illiterate rural lady belongs to below poverty line and relying on the assurance of Branch Postmaster,Purusottampur(OP No.4) obtained the RPLI policy on dtd.25.03.2010 with an assured value of Rs.25,000/- and accordingly paid the premium dues for 40 months. Subsequently, the policy holder Anita Das died on dtd.16.08.2013 when the complainant/claimant, husband of the deceased policy holder approached the Ops to get the assured value. The Ops denied to pay the assured value with the plea that the proposal of the policy holder was not accepted for different reason. On counter Ops pleas are that as the proposal form under RPLI policy was incomplete, hence the said proposal was not accepted and the monthly premium collected by Branch Post office, Purusottampur(OP No.4) was unauthorized and the assured value of the said policy was not disbursed to the complainant/claimant for the said reasons. In the present dispute complainant filed attested Xerox copy of proposal form, attested Xerox copies of monthly premium receipt and the letter of OP-Deptt. dtd. 16th April,2015 which are obtained under RTI Act,2005 and the attested Xerox copy of death and legal heir certificate of the deceased policy holders.
The documents presented before us clearly clarifies that the proposal form of deceased policy holder remains with the OP-Deptt. for more than 5 years without accepting or rejecting the same. Further the OP No.4, Branch Postmaster, Purusottampur who is a subordinate officer collects the monthly premium for 3 years without ascertaining the status of the proposal of deceased policy holder. Further, the OP-Deptt. raised that as per the clause 7 of the POLI Rules the proposer- policy holder is solely responsible for any misleading, inaccurate and wrong information the proposal form. It is the case of the OP-Deptt. that the deceased policy holder RPLI proposal form was incomplete in column of witness to declaration, female proposer declaration, medical certificate, witness to LTI were not done for which the proposal was not accepted and policy bond was not issued. We gone through the photocopy of proposal form which is filed by complainant and it appears from the photo copy that the proposer/policy holder is an illiterate rural lady who put her thumb impression on the proposal form and the said proposal form is filled in and witnessed by OP No.4, BPM, Purusottmpur and there are some minor deviations in filing the proposal form. We feel surprised that when one of the officers of OP-Deptt.(OP No.4) filed in the proposal form on behalf of an illiterate rural women and collect the monthly premiums regularly for 3 years and the other Ops remained silent without verifying the status of the proposal and deny to accept the proposal when the question of payment of assured value arises. It is more surprising that in the column IMPORTANT NOTICE the OP-Deptt. allows or empowers the proposer or his/her agent to fill the proposal form. In the instant dispute the proposer is an illiterate lady and the proposal form is filled in by the Agent i.e. OP No.4. Hence, the plea of the OP-Deptt. as Rule – 7 of POLI are not binding on the policy holder as it involves their own officers, further it is the settle principle of law and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court that a contract is void when it opposes the public policy. That apart the RPLI policy is meant for the benefit of the rural people, and burden can not be shifted to the proposer/policy holder only when the payment of assured value arises. OP-Deptt. further raise the plea that the proposal is not certified by a Govt. Medical doctorhaving M.B.B.S.qualification. But it appears from the terms and condition of the project proposal that a doctor having M.B.B.S is mandatory provision to certify in the proposal form. In the proposal for a Govt. doctor namely Sayed Abdul Hansan who examined the proposer and found her heath condition is OK in the time of submission of RPLI policy. In the present dispute all the Ops are jointly severally liable for the negligency for not accepting the proposal form of the deceased policy holder Anita Das, wife of complainant/claimant and the complainant is no way responsible for non-generation of Policy Bond. As per the observations made above, we are of the opinion that the Ops have committed deficiency in service by not releasing the assured policy value of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant/claimant and all the pleas of non-release of assured value is an after thought idea to cover up the mistake in their own official functioning. The refusal to release the assured value as per the policy by the OP-Deptt. is illegal and not in accordance with law and violation of Natural justice.
Accordingly, we direct the Ops to release the assured value of Rs.25,000/- along with 6 per cent interest along with other financial benefits, if any relates to the said RPLI policy from the date of death of the deceased policy holder to the complainant/claimant till the date of realization as per the provisions of POLI Rules, It is further directed that the OP-Deptt. will pay Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand)only to the complainant as cost of litigation. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which Rs.50/-(Rupees Fifty)only will be charged for the delayed period.
The complaint is allowed in part with cost on contest.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 26th day of November,2016.
