This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 10-07-14                                in the presence of Sri P. Rajendra Prasad, advocate for complainant and of                                  Sri K.V.G.M.K.Rao, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-      The complainant is a nominee of the insured filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking the policy amount of Rs.25,000/- and interest on it @18% p.a., from the date of death of the insured; return of excess premium of Rs.906/- together with interest @24% from 01-10-12 and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

          Complainant’s father Katta Venkateswarlu during his lifetime took a postal life insurance policy from the opposite parties for Rs.25,000/- on payment of Rs.151/- pm.   After receiving the 1^st premium the opposite parties issued the policy bearing No.R-AP-VJ-EA 406552.  The said policy commenced from 27-03-06 onwards.   The insured (deceased) was paying the entire amount payable per year in advance.   The insured/deceased paid the premium on 20-03-12 for the period from 4/12 to 3/13.   The insured died on 08-10-12.  The complainant being nominee approached the                     2^nd opposite party and submitted original passbook, copy of insurance policy and death certificate.  The 2^nd opposite party wantonly declined to settle the claim by demanding to produce good health certificate and good health declaration for the year 2008-2009.   The opposite parties have accepted and received installments for subsequent period 4/09 to 3/13.  The opposite parties never demanded the insured to produce good health certificate and good health declaration.   After weighting reasonable time the complainant on 17-01-14 issued notice to the opposite parties for settlement of claim.   The opposite parties even failed to give reply.   The conduct of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim is unjust and thereby amounted to deficiency in service.   The opposite parties put the complainant to suffer physically and mentally for which the complainant estimated the same at Rs.10,000/-.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The 1^st opposite party filed memo adopting version of                              2^nd opposite party and their contention in brief is thus:

          The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.     The insured has to pay monthly premium from 4/06 onwards.   Instead of paying regular monthly installments the insured applied for permission to pay arrears from 4/06 to 5/07.   The opposite parties on 16-05-07 permitted the insured with a direction to submit good health certificate and good health declaration.   The insured accordingly paid arrears of premium on 31-05-07 and submitted good health certificate and good health declaration and the subject policy was revived.   The insured again became a defaulter by not paying premium regularly from 06/07 onwards.   The insured on 26-02-08 paid arrears of premium payable from 6/07 to 3/08 without taking prior permission.  As the insured paid all arrears of premium and submitted good health certificate and good health declaration, the opposite parties considered and revived the policy for the 2^nd time also.   The insured again failed to pay premium from 4/08 to 4/09 and thus became defaulter.   The insured on 29-01-09 applied for permission to pay arrears of premium from 4/08 to 4/09.   The opposite parties on 06-02-09 accorded permission to pay arrears of premium with a direction to submit good health certificate and good health declaration, but the insured failed to submit good health certificate and good health declaration to get his policy revived.   The opposite parties cannot revive the policy without good health certificate and good health declaration of the insured as per rule 58 clause (3) of Postal Life Insurance Rules.  The said policy therefore got lapsed by 3/08.   The insured is quite aware of submitting good health certificate and good health declaration as he submitted earlier twice.   The insured also suppressed his age and as such the policy is voidable at the option of the opposite parties.   The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complainant approached this Forum suppressing material facts.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.   

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-6 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-6 on behalf of opposite parties were marked.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

          1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by                       demanding the complainant to submit good health certificate                      and good health declaration of the deceased insured?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled for return of  premium?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed?

          4. To what relief?

6.   Admitted facts in this complaint are these:-

          1. The opposite parties issued policy bearing No. R-AP-VJ-EA                   406552 for Rs.25,000/- on 27-03-06 in favour of Katta                             Venkateswarlu (Ex.A-1).

          2.  The opposite parties issued passbook (Ex.A-2).

          3. The insured died on 08-10-12 in Ponugupadu village (Ex.A-3)

          4. Exchange of notices between the parties took place

                   (Exs.A-4 to A-6 and B-4)

7.      The opposite parties contended that the opposite parties suppressed the age of the deceased/insured as 45 at the time of taking policy.                   Ex.B-6 is copy of proposal form.  In Clause 4 of Ex.B-6 the opposite parties sought the age of the complainant at the time of maturity of the policy and it was mentioned as 60 years.   The policy period was for a period of                    15 years.  Under those circumstances, the contention of the opposite parties about the insured suppressing his age is devoid of merit.

8.  POINT No.1:-   The opposite parties under Ex.A-6=B2 required the complainant to produce good health certificate and good health declaration of the insured as the policy got lapsed.   The complainant in para 3 of his complaint mentioned “The complainant’s father i.e., late Katta Venkateswarlu instead of paying every month he was paying all               12 months installments at one time in advance every year.”        Ex.A2  passbook revealed that the insured on 31-05-07 paid Rs.2262/- payable for the period from 4/06 to 5/07; paid Rs.1593/- on 26-02-08 towards the premium payable for the period from 6/07 to 3/08 and Rs.1930/- on 23-02-09 towards the premium payable for the period from 4/08 to 3/09; Rs.1930/- on 24-03-10 towards the premium payable for the period from 4/09 to 3/10.   The said entries in Ex.A-2 falsified the contention of the complainant that his father was paying the premium in advance after obtaining insurance policy.

9.      Ex.A-2 further revealed that the insured paid Rs.1779/- each on            05-05-10; 12-04-11; 20-03-12 for the period payable from 4/10 to 3/11, 4/11 to 3/12, 4/12 to 3/13.   The said entries revealed that the insured in advance paid premiums at once on 05-05-10; 12-04-11 and 20-03-12.   The entries in Ex.A-2 further revealed that the insured was a defaulter in payment of monthly premium during the period from 4/06 to 3/10.   The entries in Ex.A-2 further revealed that the insured was irregular in payment of premiums during that period.

10.    Burden is on the opposite parties to prove that their repudiation        is just and reasonable.   In order to discharge their burden the opposite parties relied on Rule 58 (3) of PLI rules.  

11.    It is not the case of the complainant that the insured submitted good health certificate and good health declaration when he paid arrears of premium on 31-05-07; 26-02-08, 23-02-09, 24-03-10.   On the other hand, the opposite parties contended that the insured submitted good health certificate and good health declaration on 31-05-07 and 26-02-08 to get the policy revived and subsequently failed to submit good health certificate and good health declaration and thereby the policy became lapsed by 3/08.

12.   Rule 58 clause (3) of PLI rules reads as follows:

  58. (3).       Any payments purporting to be premium/premia payments made after a policy has become void in terms of Rule 56(1) or has ceased to be active in terms of Rule 57(1) but before the policy is formally revived in terms of sub rule (1) and (2) above shall be held in suspense and shall not be considered as payments by way of premium/premia to cover the risk of life assured. No claim whatsoever shall lie on the department in the event of death of the life assured during such period when premium/premia are held in suspense and the policy is not revived. Such premia as are held in suspense shall be refunded to the policy holder, his/her nominee or his/her legal heir as the case may be, as and when applied for, with interest as prescribed by the Director General of Posts.

13.  The opposite parties cannot revive the policy as against those rules and the said contention of the opposite parties is having considerable force.   In view of afore mentioned discussions, we opine that the opposite parties demanding good health certificate and good health declaration of the insured in order to revive the policy is just and reasonable.   The contention of the complainant that he cannot produce good health certificate and good health declaration of the insured at present is justifiable.   We therefore opine that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service as they acted according to rules and answer this point against the complainant.

14.  POINT No.2:-  In view of above findings, the complainant is not entitled to any damages and answer this point against the complainant.  

15.   POINT No. 3:-    In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.   The opposite parties are at liberty to return the amount if any as per postal life insurance rules.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 16^th day of July, 2014.

Sd/-XXX                                    Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                     MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party: 

                                                                                                    Sd/-XXX   

  PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.