Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/08/61

Adam Pasha S/o Md. Gouse O/c GDS Packer - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Post Master General (PLI), A.P. Circle DANSADAN. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri E. Padma Reddy

16 Oct 2008

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday the 16th day of October, 2008

 

                                                             Present:- Sri M.Rama Rao, B.A.,LL.B., President

     Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, B.com., LL.B., Member

       Smt.B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member

 

                                                                         C.C.NO. 61  Of   2008

 

Between:-

Adam Pasha, S/o M.D. Gouse, Aged: 27 years, Occ: GDS Packer,  R/o Pedda Jatram village and post, Via Dhanwada, Utkur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.  

                                                                                              … Complainant.

And

The Chief Post Master General (P.L.I.) A.P. Circle DANSADAN,

Opp: Hyderabad GPO, Abids, Hyderabad.

                                                                                         … Opposite Party

 

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 6-10-2008,  in the presence of Sri E. Padma Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri P. Bal Reddy, Govt. Pleader, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

 

O R D E R

 

(Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, Member)

 

1.        This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay the policy amount of Rs.80,000/- together with future interest  @ 18% p.a. from 23.12.2005 till realization to the complainant  and also costs of the complaint.

 

2.      The complaint averments are as follows:-   The complainant is the  son of late Smt. Razia Begum, who worked as GDS Packer at Lalkota S.O. village of OP department.  She took policy under Postal Life Insurance vide Policy No.AP238094-P for Rs.80,000/- from OP.  The said policy came into force from 22.12.2005 and it was issued by OP after receiving the required premium of Rs.588/-.   The insured died on 23.12.2005.  Being a nominee the complainant submitted claim before the OP on 31.7.2007.    The opposite party failed to settle the same hence reminder was issued on 13.9.2007.   The opposite party on 8.5.2007 repudiated the claim arbitrarily.  The insurance is a contractual obligation.  Hence OP cannot escape from liability after receiving the premium and accepting the proposal and issuing the policy.   Thus OP rendered deficiency in service by repudiating the claim arbitrarily.  Therefore the complainant is entitled for Rs.80,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from  23.12.2005 apart from the costs of the complaint.   Hence the complaint. 

 

3.     The opposite party filed counter with the following averments:-  It is true that  Smt. Razia Begum, the mother of the complainant was an employee of OP department worked as GDS Packer.   She applied for P.L.I. on 27.10.2005 and it was accepted on 22.12.2005 and the acceptance memo was issued on 30.12.2005.   But before receipt of information of acceptance of the policy and receipt of policy document the proposer died on 23.12.2005.    The contract is valid only if the policy is delivered to the insured and contractual obligation will come into force from the date of receipt of policy.   Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any amount under the policy.   As such the first premium amount of Rs.588/- which was paid by the proposer was refunded to the complainant on 13.7.2007.  The claim is repudiated on the reason of unconcluded contract.  As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.            

 

4.  The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5.

 

5. The opposite party filed his counter in the shape of counter affidavit and as such he has not filed separate affidavit but got marked Exs.B-1 to B-3 on his behalf. 

 

6. The complainant filed his written arguments.

 

7. Heard the learned counsel of both sides.

 

8. The point which falls for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the policy amount as prayed for?

 

9.      Facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant is the son of Smt. Razia Begum, who worked as GDS Packer in OP department and she applied for Postal Life Insurance Policy for Rs.80,000/- by filing proposal form and paying the first instalment premium of Rs.588/- on 27.10.2005.  The proposal was accepted and policy bearing No.AP238094-P was issued with a commencement date as 22.12.2005.   The insured expired on 23.12.2005.   The policy was released by OP on 30.12.2005.   The complainant is the nominee to the said policy and he submitted the claim form before OP.   The claim was repudiated and the first premium amount of Rs.588/- was refunded to the complainant on 13.7.2007.    

 

10. Now the simple question before us is whether the contract is concluded or not.  According to the complainant the insured paid required premium and OP accepted the proposal and issued policy with a commencement date as 22.12.2005.   Therefore the policy was very much in force as on the date of death of the policy holder.  On the other hand the contention of OP is that though the policy was accepted and issued it was not received by the insured and she had no knowledge about the acceptance of the policy.   Therefore it is an unconcluded contract.   

 

    We have perused the material available before us.  Admittedly and even according to Ex.A-1 it is clear that the proposal submitted by the insured was accepted on 22.12.2005 and the OP made it clear in Ex.A-1 that the risk of the insured life will cover with effect from 22.12.2005 and whereas the insured died on 23.12.2005 i.e., very next day of commencement of the policy.  Therefore in our considered view the policy was very much in force.  Therefore we hold that it is a concluded contract.    The opposite party relied upon the Rule 15 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules 1984. (Corrected upto 1985) to prove his contention. “A life insurance or endowment assurance contract will be held to commence from the date borne by the policy or written document in which the contract is recorded; and the policy will be given to the person insured for custody”.  This Rule is not supporting the case of OP.  Even according to this Rule also the complainant is entitled for the policy amount.  The opposite party further relied upon Ex.B-3, i.e., the order of District Forum Machilipatnam.  This decision is not binding on this Forum and it does not deserve consideration.    The contention of OP that again the insured should accept the policy is not sustainable under law.   The acceptance of policy must be done by the insurance company but not by the proposer.  Thus OP is not justified in repudiating the claim.  Therefore we hold that there is a deficiency in service by OP and the repudiation of the claim is not tenable in the eye of law.   Hence OP is liable to pay the policy amount together with interest to the complainant. 

 

    Admittedly OP refunded Rs.588/-.   As such OP is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.79,412/- under the policy.   The complainant is claiming interest @ 18% p.a. thereon.  In our view it is at higher side and OP is a public authority.  Therefore 6% interest is reasonable to award from the date of death of the insured.   The complainant is also entitled for Rs.600/- towards costs of the proceedings because the acts of OP dragged the complainant to approach this Forum and file compliant.       

 

11. In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.79,412/- together with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from                 23-12-2005 till date of payment to the complainant and Rs.600/- towards costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order.   

 

   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of October, 2008.           

 

        

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                              PRESIDENT 

        Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

 

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite party:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-

 

Ex.A-1:        Letter of acceptance of Policy by OP, dt.30.12.2005.

Ex.A-2:        Death Certificate, dt.30.12.2005.

Ex.A-3:        Letter addressed to OP, dt.31.7.2007.

Ex.A-4:        Letter addressed to OP, dt.13.9.2007.

Ex.A-5:        Letter issued by OP, dt.8.5.2007.

  

Exhibits marked for OP:- 

 

Ex.B-1:        Xerox copy of Proposal Form.

Ex.B-2:        Xerox copy of letter of acceptance of Policy by OP,  

                    dt.30.12.2005.

Ex.B-3:        Xerox copy of judgment, dt.7.10.2003.

 

By the Forum:

     - Nil-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

1. Sri E. Padma Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri P. Bal Reddy, Govt. Pleader, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.