West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/3/2016

Sri Amulya Mahato - Complainant(s)

Versus

Superintendent of Post Offices - Opp.Party(s)

20 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                              DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and 

Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No. 03/2016

                                                        

                                        Sri Amulya Mahato…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Superintendent of  Post Offices, Contai Division;

2. Asst. Divisional Manager (PLI), W.B. circle;

           3)  Post Master General, Kolkata...........…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Samarendranath Kaity, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Debiprasad Das Mahapatra, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 20/04/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that Maitreyee Mahato, since deceased, the daughter of the complainant purchased a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy (R.P.L.I.) being policy no.R-W.B.-S.B.-E.A.131211 for the sum assured Rs.1,00,000/- only commencing from 04/03/2006 from the opposite party no.3 through it’s Divisional Office-opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 issued the said policy.  The opposite party no.3 has also several branch offices for their business within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant is the nominee of the said policy of Maitreyee Mahato. Unfortunately on 23/12/2013, Maitreyee Mahato, the daughter of the complainant, died unmarried living behind the complainant as her only legal heir.  After the death of his daughter, the complainant claimed the payment of the said policy on

Contd…………………….P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

29/01/2014 and thereafter in spite of several request, the opposite parties on the plea of processing delaying the payment of the claim amount which tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thereafter the complainant vide his letter dated 27/07/2015 and 09/10/2015 addressed to the Chief Post Master General i.e. the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.2 requesting them to look into the matter urgently and to take necessary action for payment without delay but in spite of receipt of those letters, the opposite parties have been corresponding between themselves but no fruitful result has yet come.   The complainant is a man of 74 years old and he has lost his wife and only daughter and maintaining his daily life with mental pain and the same has been aggravated for the deficiency in service of the opposite parties for not paying the claim amount under the policy in spite of passing of long days.  Lastly, the complainant sent a demand notice dated 30/11/2015 by registered post with A/D to the opposite parties through his Advocate Sri Ranjan Kr. Sarkar requesting to pay the claim amount within 10 days.  In spite of that demand notice, the opposite parties have not paid the claim amount. Hence the complaint praying for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and for other reliefs.

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the present complaint is not maintainable, that the present complaint is barred by limitation,  that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint case for want of  territorial jurisdiction, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties regarding settlement of claim  and that the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has been specifically stated by the opposite parties that  Maitreyee Mahato was the bona fide policy holder of the Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy (R.P.L.I.) and she died on 23/12/2013 leaving behind her father as her only legal heir who is also the nominee of the policy.  After the death of Maitreyee Mahato, the present complainant submitted claim form on 03/02/2014 which was incomplete. The medical certificate submitted by the complainant regarding the cause of death of the     life-assured could not be verified by the opposite parties due to change of ownership of the Nursing Home named and styled as ORCHID NURSING HOME at Kolkata, where the policy holder was treated.  It has been reported by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kolkata East Division that the death certificate could not be verified as no information of death or any register is available with the present owner Dr. Rames Pendey, who has taken the Nursing Home from the month of November, 2014  on lease. Further according to the opposite parties all other documents got verified and the original       

Contd…………………….P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

claim-file has been sent to the Assistant Divisional  Manager (PLI) on 24/08/2015 and after getting back the file from Assistant Divisional Manager (PLI), the case was sent to the Post Master Jhargram H.O. on 07/01/2016 for sanction in accordance with received instruction issued by the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata.  It is stated that due to non-cooperation of the new owner of ORCHID NURSING HOME, the opposite parties could not verified the cause of death of the policy holder and the delay is entirely due to non-verification of the cause of death of the insured Maitreyee Mahato and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite partis.  It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for and the case is liable to be rejected.

Points for decision

 

1)Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer ?

2)Has this Forum jurisdiction to try this case ?

3) Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?                      

Decision with reasons

   All the above points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

   At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case neither the complainant nor the opposite parties adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary.  However, they have relied upon certain documents, so filed by them in this case.  In paragraph 3 of their written objection, it has been stated that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum for want of  territorial jurisdiction.  About the said objection, we find that in this case, Post Master General, Office of Chief Post Master General, West Bengal circle has been made as opposite party no.3 and Assistance Divisional Manager, West Bengal Circle Kolkata has been made as party as opposite party no.2.  It is needless to say that opposite party nos.2 & 3 have their branch offices in the district of Paschim Medinipur and so in view of section 11(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, this Forum has jurisdiction to try  this present case as the opposite parties have their branch offices within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  So, the said objection is without merit and accordingly it is decided that this Forum has jurisdiction to try the present case.

Admittedly, Maitreyee Mahato, since deceased, the daughter of the complainant purchased a Rural Postal  Life Insurance Policy (RPLI) for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party no.3 through it’s Divisional Office-opposite party no.1 and opposite party

Contd…………………….P/4

 

 

 

 

( 4 )

no. 2 issued the said policy. It is also admitted that the complainant is the nominee of the said policy of Maitreyee Mahato.  According to the complainant, her daughter Maitreyee Mahato died unmarried on 23/12/2013 leaving the complainant as her only legal heir and nominee of the said policy.  It is not denied and disputed that thereafter the complainant submitted claim before the opposite parties on 29/01/2014 and in spite of several request, the opposite parties have not paid the claim amount.  From the written objection of the opposite parties, we find that according to them they could not verify the death certificate of Maitreyee Mahato as no information of death or register is available with the present owner of the said nursing home named and styled as ORCHID NURSING HOME at Kolkata where the deceased policy holder Maitreyee Mahato died.  In their written objection, opposite parties have not denied regarding receipt of death certificate but according to them due to change ownership of the nursing home, they could not verify the cause of death of the life assured.  However, for such change of ownership of the nursing home where the life assured died, the present complainant who is the man of  74 years old cannot be denied regarding his claim of the policy as nominee.  It appears from the written objection of the opposite parties that after several correspondences with the higher authorities they have sent the death claim-case to the Post Master, Jhargram H.O. on 07/01/2016 for sanction in accordance with the received instruction issued by the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata.  Since it is admitted that the death claim-case has already been sent to the Post Master, Jhargram H.O. by the opposite parties for sanction, so the facts remain admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant is entitled to get the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as nominee under the policy in question.  About the prayer for compensation, we find that the claim form was submitted before the opposite parties by the complainant on 29/01/2014 and thereafter 2 years have already been passed and for such delay in disposal of the claim-case,  the complainant has suffered mental pain and agony for which he is entitled to an order of compensation as well as an order of direction upon the opposite parties for settling the claim case without any further delay.

              In view of above discussions, it is held that the complaint case deserves to be allowed.

                         Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                              that the complaint case  is allowed on contest  with cost. Opposite parties are directed to settle the claim of the policy in question  and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards sum assured of the policy in

Contd…………………….P/5

 

 

 

 

 

( 5 )

question within a month from this date of order.  Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost within a month from this  date of order

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                Dictated & Corrected by me

             

                             President                        Member                     Member                President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur