This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      26-09-11 in the presence of Sri M.Sitharam Das, advocate for complainant and of Sri P.Sanath Kumar, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER: 

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite parties to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of death of insured i.e., 13-03-08 to 20-04-11 amounting to Rs.37,231/-, compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony, Rs.20,000/- funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- as legal expenses.

2.      The brief facts of complaint are as follows:

                The 1^st complainant is the wife of 2^nd complainant.  The 1^st complainant’s brother Mr.Mogili Rambabu is a mechanic by profession.  He died on 13-03-08 due to ill health. During his life time he obtained postal life insurance policy from the 1^st opposite party under the plan of endowment assurance vide policy No.R-AP-VJ-E-A-1922656 on           30-04-04 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by paying the premium of Rs.821/- and showed the complainants 1 and 2 as nominees.  The deceased paid premiums regularly upto January, 2006 and failed to pay some of the installments.  On 30-07-07, the deceased paid the entire installments along with penalty and interest.  The postal authorities told that the policy is in force. Thereafter the deceased paid all the installments regularly till his death. After the death of insured/deceased, the complainants informed the same to the opposite parties and submitted all necessary documents and claim form on           01-05-08 for payment of policy amount.  The opposite parties received the claim form along with all necessary papers and kept quite.  Subsequently despite repeated demands made by the complainants the opposite parties failed to pay the insurance amount to the complainants.  The opposite parties repudiated the claim on 22-04-09 for the reasons best known to them.  There is no voluntary lapse on the part of complainant. The complainant issued registered legal notice dt.01-04-11 to the opposite parties, who received the same and kept quite.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed their version, which is in brief as follows:

                One Sri Mogili Rambabu resident of Ananthavaram Branch Post Office a/w Tadikonda Sub Post Office, Guntur District took a Rural Postal Life Insurance (RPLI) policy from Superintendent of Post Offices, Guntur Division on 30-04-04 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with policy No.R-AP-VJ-EA-192656.  The insured paid the quarterly premiums @ Rs.821/- from April, 2004 to December, 2005 regularly.   The insured failed to pay premiums from January, 2006 onwards.   As such the policy stood lapsed under rule 39 of Post Office Insurance Fund (POIF) Rules since January, 2006.  The insured did not revive the policy in accordance with the Rule No.41 of POIF by submitting revival application along with good health certificate and good health declaration.  Without getting revived the said policy, in accordance with the rules, the insured paid the premium amount from 9 months from January, 2006 to September, 2006 on 30-11-06 and for 6 months from October, 2006 to March, 2007 on 30-07-07.  He paid further premium installments intermittently upto March, 2008.

                The complainant herein submitted death claim annexure VI dt.21-06-08.  The 1^st opposite party rejected the claim.  However the amounts paid by the insured after lapse of the policy i.e., from January, 2006 to March, 2008 amounting to Rs.7389/- was refunded vide sanction memos dt.22-04-09 @ Rs.3695/- to Smt. Chittipothula Parvathi and Rs.3,694/- to Sri Chittipothula Sivaiah.  The opposite parties sent a letter by registered post to the complainant with a request to surrender the sanction memo to the post office for taking payment of Rs.7389/- being the amounts paid after the lapse of said policy.  As such there is no deficiency of service and the complaint is not maintainable.  The complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.             Both parties have filed their respective affidavits.  Ex.A1 to A21 were marked on behalf of complainant.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties.

5.      Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINTS 1 & 2

                The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy holder paid the arrears of premium after the lapse of the policy and it was not revived under Rule 41 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules for the above said period because of non-submitting of good health certificate and good health declaration by the insured during his life time.   

7.             The opposite party received the premium arrear amount from the policy holder/deceased twice (for 9 months) i.e., from January, 2006 till September, 2006 on 30-11-06 and (for 6 months) from October, 2006 to March, 2007 on 30-07-07.  The 1^st opposite party did not serve any letter to the complainant to submit the good health declaration and good health certificate while receiving the premium arrear amounts. Apart from it, there was no mention about clause of submission of good health certificate and good health declaration in the policy (Ex.A1), acceptance letter dt.21-05-04 (Ex.A2) and in the passbook (Ex.A16). As the opposite parties received premium even after the alleged lapse of the policy they are prevented from questioning.  The repudiation by opposite parties is not justified.

8.             The opposite parties stated in their version that the amounts paid by the insured Rs.7,389/-was refunded vide sanction memos dt.22-04-09 @ Rs.3695/- to Smt.Chittipothula Parvathi and Rs.3694/- to Sri Chittipothula Sivaiah while repudiating the claim of the deceased.   The opposite parties failed to file the copies of sanction memos or acknowledgements to show that they have sent the sanction memos. Therefore, they failed to prove their contention.

                In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim (21-06-08) till the date of realization.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainants.
3. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainants towards costs.
4. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount ordered in item No.2 shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. till realization.    

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 11^th day of October, 2011.   

MEMBER                         MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:        

For opposite parties:   NIL

                                                                                              PRESIDENT