This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Ravi Babu, Advocate for the complainant and Sri Ch.Appa Rao, Advocate for O.Ps. and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O   R   D   E   R

                 This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

Act, 1986 seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to pay the entire RPLI (Rural Postal Life Insurance) bond amount together with interest and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on the following averments.  The Complainant is the wife of Challa Srirama Murty.  During the life time of Srirama Murty he took RPLI by paying Rs.520/- on 29-3-2011 vide Policy No. R.AP.EA – 2890390 from the 3^rd O.P. who promised that the Bond will be received by her husband within a short period and the next premium will be collected after delivering the bond.  The deceased Srirama Murty nominated the complainant to receive the benefits in case of his death.  It is averred that the complainant took a policy along with her husband and the said policy is in force and she has been paying amount regularly.  After the policy was taken by the deceased the O.P. dispatched the policy bond to the deceased but unfortunately on 2-6-2011 the deceased died in a motor accident.  After his death the complainant filed a claim before the 1^st O.P. along with relevant documents but the latter addressed a letter to the former on 28-7-2012 stating that there is no subsisting contract between her husband and O.Ps.  since the O.Ps. did not settle the claim of complainant there is any amount of deficiency of service on their part.

          It is averred that the complainant got issued a registered lawyer notice to the O.Ps. on 24-9-2012 demanding them to pay the amount due upon which the 2^nd O.P. sent a reply stating that they have referred the matter to 1^st O.P. for taking necessary action.  The complainant waited for all these days with a fond hope that the O.Ps. would settle her claim but of no avail.  Hence the complaint.

          The 2^nd O.P. filed counter and the same was adopted by O.Ps. 1 and 3 by filing a memo traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that deceased Srirama Murty has taken RPLI for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- by paying an amount of Premium of Rs.520/- at Denkada S.O. vide RPLI receipt No.7 on 30-3-2011 and the said application was received by O.P. and they sent the policy bond along with PR Book to the proponent on  14-7-2011 and as the proponent expired before taking the PR Book and policy bond, the same was returned back to their office on 19-7-2011 with a remark “ Addressee died hence returned to sender”.

          It is averred that as per Rule-34 of postal office life insurance rule “A life insurance contract will be held to commence from the date borne on the policy (date of acceptance) or written document in which the contract is recorded; and the policy will be given to the person insured for custody”.  It is averred that as the deceased did not receive the document and expired before it is delivered the contract has not been commenced between the proponent and Department and hence the complaint is not maintainable under law.  It is further averred that as there are no merits in the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed.

          To support the case of complainant her evidence affidavit is filed and to corroborate her testimony she got marked Ex.A.1 to A.4 and on behalf of O.Ps. the evidence affidavit of R.W.1 is filed and Ex.B.1 to B.3 is marked.

          Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.   It is the specific contention of the complainant that her deceased husband Srirama Murty has taken RPLI by paying Rs.520/- on 29-3-2011 and the O.Ps. issued policy bond bearing No.2890390 and promised that the policy bond will be sent to the deceased within a short period and though the O.Ps. have dispatched the policy bond to the address of the deceased the same was not delivered to him as he died in a Motor accident on 2-6-2011.  It is her further contention that the policy issued by the O.Ps. was in force as on the date of accident and though she made a claim of the amount due, the O.Ps. did not settle the claim and made her to run to this Forum. 

          In the counter filed by the O.Ps. they did not deny the above said facts but have taken a plea that as per Rule 34 of Postal Office Life Insurance Rules a life insurance contract will be held to commence from the date born on the policy (date of acceptance) or written document in which the contract is recorded” and the policy will be given to the person insured for custody and as the policy document was not delivered to the insured as he expired before it is delivered there exists no concluded contract in between them and as such the complaint is not maintainable under law.

          The learned counsel for complainant has cited a decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and others AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 1014

Wherein it is held:-  Mere delay in giving an answer cannot be construed as an acceptance, as, prima facie, acceptance must be communicated to the offeror.  Similarly the mere receipt and retention of premium until after the death of the applicant or the mere preparation of the policy document is not acceptance.

          As seen from the principles laid down in the decision cited supra mere receipt and retention of premium until after the death of the applicant or the mere preparation of the policy does not amount to acceptance.  As seen from the facts of the above case the proposal sent by the deceased was for some reason or the other was not accepted by the Divisional Office by the time the deceased had died.  But the deceased in this case was very much alive when the proposal was accepted and the policy document was issued on 30-3-2011.  Hence the decision cited supra is not made applicable to the facts of this case.

          In a decision in A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in F.A. 369/2006 in between the Branch Post Master, Chandrakal Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and 2 others  Vs. P.Sugunamma, W/o P.Krishna Rao, 45 yrs., R/o Chandakal, Peddakothapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

          Wherein it is held:  There is no dispute that the deceased Prasada Rao had sent a proposal for issuing a RPLI Policy for an insurance coverage of Rupees one lakh by paying an initial premium amount of Rs.245/- (Rs.280/-) through the 1^st O.P. and the same was sent to the 2^nd O.P. for its acceptance who, in turn, after acceptance had sent an intimation to the proposer for acceptance by sending a letter and before the said memo was accepted, the proposer P.Prasada Rao died on 6-6-2004 due to snake bite and on coming to know about the death of the proposer that the memo was not accepted, the insurance contract was repudiated on the ground that it is not a concluded contract.  There cannot be any dispute or doubt that the proposer died on 6-6-2004 even before acceptance of the memo and pass book and thereby the insurance contract did not conclude or materialize.  The law is very well settled on this aspect that a contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates his acceptance to the person making the offer.  The factual aspect makes it clear that there is a slip between a cup and lip and in the absence of any concluded contract, the complainant cannot contend that it is a concluded contract and entitled for the assured sum.  In the light of the principle laid down in the above decision, the complainant is not entitled to the assured amount under the policy and thereby the findings of the District Forum are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

Coming to case on hand in the counter filed by the O.Ps. they have averred that they received premium of Rs.520/- from the deceased at Denkada SO., vide RPLI No.7 in Book No.10320 on 30-3-2011 and the said application was received by 2^nd O.P. who allotted No.R-AP-EA-2890390 and the policy bond along with PR Book was sent to the proponent on 14-7-2011.  Ex.B.1 is the policy document and as seen from its contents the premium was accepted and policy was issued on 30-3-2011. 

As seen from the material placed on record it seems that an offer was made by O.P.3 to the deceased to take RPLI (Rural Postal Life Insurance) for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by paying premium amount of Rs.520/- this offer was accepted by the deceased and he paid the premium amount to    O.P.3.  The O.Ps. have acted upon the acceptance and issued Ex.B.1 Insurance Bond.  When there was valid proposal and acceptance in between contracting parties and when they have acted upon it can safely be held that there was concluded contract in between them and the same is liable to be enforced under law.

          It seems that Rule 34 is being misused by the postal authorities.  When the Postal Authority (P.A) is accepting the premium amount and is issuing policy documents there is no need for the delay in sending the policy bond and pass book to the insured for custody.  One is expected to send such documents to the insured immediately – Reasonable delay in certain cases is excusable if such delay is properly explained or for justifiable grounds.  There is no justification to retain the policy document with the insurer for days together or months together.  When there is considerable delay in dispatching the document to the insured it can safely be inferred that with a malafide intention to defeat the interest of insured or his/her nominee the insurer has delayed in sending such documents as the latter is going to be protected under Rule 34.

          Hence the act of O.P. for not sending the policy document in reasonable time is depricable.

          Coming to the case on hand the deceased paid the premium amount to the 3^rd O.P. and the same was accepted on 30-3-2011 and B.1 policy was issued which bears the date of acceptance as 30-3-2011 and when the said document was communicated to the deceased the same was returned back on the ground that the deceased died.  As seen from the Rule 34 of Postal Office Life Insurance Rules a Life Insurance Contract will be held to commence from the date borne on the policy (date of acceptance) and the policy will be given to the person insured for custody.

          In view of the above said rule the insurance contract will be held to commence from the date borne on the policy.  Ex.B.1 policy contains the date of commencement as 30-3-2011.  The condition of delivering the policy document to the insured for custody is not a pre condition for commencement of contract.  Since the premium amount was received by the 3^rd O.P. and policy document was issued on 30-3-2011 it can be said that there is a concluded contract in between the deceased and O.Ps. and as such the O.Ps. are bound to pay the policy amount to the complainant, who is the nominee of the deceased.         In a decision in N.Venkateswalu Vs. Branch Post Master & Ors., 2011(4) CPJ 194.  

Wherein it is held:- Rural Postal Life Insurance – Insurance claim – Postal authorities accepted the premium but did not inform the proposer about either rejection of acceptance of the proposal for over one and half years, till the death of the proposer – The deficiency in service writ large in the conduct of the higher offices of the department of posts – The interest of justice and equity would be met if the nominee of the deceased is paid the full amount of policy, viz., Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of death if the deceased till actual realization.

          In another decision in Post Master General Vs. Siddabhathuni Venkata Madhavi, 2009 (I) CPJ  210.

          Wherein it is held:- Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy – Concluded contract – Post Master sent the proposal on 6-3-1994 and the same was accepted on     31-3-2004 – Communication by registered post on 7-7-2004 after death of the insured on 26-4-2004 – Circular letter dt.30-5-2005 issued long subsequent to the proposal cannot have retrospective effect and binding on the cases prior to the issuance of circular – Clause 11 of Brochure under caption ‘Special features’ mentioned that the life assured insurance is effective from the date of acceptance of proposal – Since proposal already accepted even before the death of the deceased it would come into force from the date of proposal – Order of the District Forum allowing the claim upheld.

          As seen from the principles laid down in the decision cited supra though there is delay in informing the proposal about the acceptance or rejection of proposal for a suitable length of time it can be construed that there is deficiency in service on the part of the officials of department of force.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed and the O.Ps. are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with subsequent interest at 7 % p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards damages and costs which includes the advocate fee of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only).  O.Ps. are directed to comply the order within two months from this day.          

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 25^th day of February, 2014.

Member                                                           President

CC. 76 of 2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1   Lr. Dt.28-7-2012 from 1^st O.P. to complainant
2. Ex.A.2  Office copy of Regd.Lawyer Notice dt.24-9-2012
3. Ex.A.3  Postal Acknowledgements (3)
4. Ex.A.4  Letter dt.4-10-2012 to the advocate.

For O.P :-

1. Ex.B.1  RPLI Policy dt.1-6-2011
2. Ex.B.2  Xerox copy of proforma
3. Ex.B.3  Receipt dt.30-3-2011 (Xerox copy)

                                                                             President