In the matter of an application, filed by the Complainant, alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties.
Brief facts of the Case :-
The Complainant is a Policy Holder of Rural Postal Life Insurance vide Policy No. ROR-EA-640932 dated 17.03.2012 for sum assured Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only on regular payment of monthly premium of Rs. 630/- (Rupees three hundred and thirty) only and she has paid entire premium regularly during 17.03.2012 to 13.02.2016, total amount of Rs. 30,768/- (Rupees thirty thousand seven hundred and sixty eighty) only. As per the provision and facility underwritten by the Opposite Parties in the said policy, the complainant had applied for agriculture loan through the Post Master, Dharambandha Branch Post Office on 02.03.2016 and deposited her Passbook (Premium Book along with Policy Bond) and thereafter O.P. No. 1 sent all the documents to the Higher Authority for sanction of said loan. But the O.Ps have neither sanction loan nor return back the policy bond and premium receipt book (Passbook). Thereafter the complainant had personally approached to the Post Master, Nuapada Post Office so also made grievance in written to O.P. No. 2 on 20.06.2016 and also to higher authority regarding non-response for sanction of loan and he requested to release the Passbook (Premium receipt book) and policy bond to deposit her regular insurance premium. In absence of Premium Receipt Book, O.P. No. 1 could not accept the premium of complainant in the above said policy for which the policy has discontinued though the complainant was ready to pay the required insurance premium to the O.Ps. So it is clear instance of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and as such the complainant claim for reliefs as prayed for. The complainant has filed the documents in support of their claim as under :-
- Xerox copy of Acceptance Letter of RPLI PROPOSAL vide Policy No. ROR-EA-640932 issued by DDM (RPLI) Kalahandi Division dated 05.11.2013.
- Xerox copy of Grievance application made to the Sub-Inspector Postal dated 20.06.2016.
Being noticed, the O.P. No. 2 appeared and filed a written version for himself and on behalf of O.P. No. 1,3 & 4 jointly as duly authorized by O.P. No. 3. In written version the O.Ps have admitted the allegation of Paragraph No. 1 of the complaint petition but they have denied the rest of the allegation of the complainant against them. The O.Ps have stated in their version in Para 4 that the complainant had applied for surrender of her RPLI Policy No. ROR-EA-640932 vide her application dated 20.08.2016 (Annexure-R/1). The same has been sanctioned vide Manager, Central Processing Centre PLI/RPLI vide Letter No. ROR-EA-640932 (Disbursement Voucher No. 1468702) dated 01.10.2016 (Annexure-R/2). An amount of Rs. 17,571/- (Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred and seventy one) has been received by the complainant on 01.10.2016 vide Cheque No. 066660 dated 01.10.2016. The O.Ps have also filed a Xerox copy of Surrender Application dated 20.08.2016 as Annexure-R/1, a xerox copy of Disbursement Voucher No. 1468702 dated 01.10.2016 as Annexure-R/2 and a Xerox copy of Surrender Quote as 10.09.2016 as Annexure-R/3.
In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-
- Whether any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
ISSUE No. I .
On perusal of records, it is seems that, the complainant is a Policy Holder in the office of O.Ps vide Policy No. ROR-EA-640932 dated 17.03.2012 for sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only on regular payment of monthly premium of Rs. 630/- (Rupees six hundred and thirty) only and also she has paid the entire premium from 17.03.2012 to 13.02.2016 in total of Rs. 30,768/- (Rupees thirty thousand seven hundred and sixty eight) only. As per the provision and facility in the said policy, the complainant had applied for agriculture loan through the O.P. No. 1 on 02.03.2016 and she deposited her Passbook (Premium Book alongwith Policy Bond) in the office of O.P. No. 1 and accordingly O.P. No. 1 forwarded the same to the higher authority for sanction of the said loan. But the O.Ps have neither sanction loan nor return back the policy bond and premium receipt book (Passbook) to
the complainant for which she made grievance in written to O.P. No. 2 on 20.06.2016 and also to higher authority regarding non-response for sanction of loan and she requested to release the Passbook (Premium receipt book) and Policy Bond to deposit her insurance premium. But the O.Ps did not heed for the same and in absence of Premium Receipt Book, O.P. No. 1 could not accept the premium of complainant in the said policy for which the policy has discontinued though the complainant was ready to pay the insurance premium to the O.Ps. So due to negligence and deficiency in service by the O.Ps, the complainant surrendered her policy and got surrender value of Rs. 17,571/- (Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred and seventy one) only from O.Ps on 17.03.2012 for which she sustained financial loss.
Perused the documents of complainant as well as the O.Ps, we found that the claim of complainant is justified and as such taken in consideration.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S BALBIR SINGH that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer has to be taken in to consideration while compensating him for loss or injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence of deficiency in service of the service provider.
Hence, it is apparent from the above issue, that, there is a deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties as not attending properly to the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties.
So, we are of considered opinion that, there is a deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties. Thus, the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in service.
ISSUE No. II.
It is clear crystal that, the complainant has proved her case and she is entitled to get relief in this case. Hence, order.
O R D E R.
In the above facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 14(i)(d)) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under :-
- We direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only to the complainant as compensation towards financial loss, mental agony and harassment and to further pay Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) towards litigation cost within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order.
- Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law.
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 21st day of November 2017.
