BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 154/2007 Filed on 16.06.2007 Dated : 15.01.2009 Complainant:
J. Nirmala, Vazhavarathala veedu, Kezhoor, Vellayani P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 522.
Opposite parties:
The Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram, Department of Posts, Government of India, O/o the Chief Post Master General, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 033. Deputy Divisional Manager(PLI), O/o the Chief Post Master General, Thiruvananthapuram – 33.
This O.P having been heard on 15.12.2008, the Forum on 15.01.2009 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER The complainant is a blind person. The facts as they emerge out of the complaint are that the complainant is a policy holder of rural postal life insurance for an insured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with monthly premium of Rs. 215/-. The complainant chose to take the particular policy as the PLI agent told the complainant that they were free to stop paying the premium after the payment of at least 36 months and eventually they would be repaid the whole amount paid up as premium and a bonus. The complainant had taken the policy by filling the necessary entries in the proposal form on the basis of the information made available to her by the PLI agent. Thus the complainant had paid 36 months' premium totalling to Rs. 7740/- and applied for surrendering the policy and accordingly the complainant received a communication from the office of the opposite party that the complainant is eligible for Rs. 2,508/- only which is much lesser than the paid up premium amount. This offer is a breach of their earlier promise. Thus the complainant has approached the Forum for legal remedy for the severe mental agony and psychological shock and for the great loss.
The 2nd opposite party has filed their version for and on behalf of the other opposite party also contending as follows: The policy taken by the complainant and the payment of Rs. 7,740/- are admitted. That the policy is a contract governed by the terms and conditions accepted in between the Government of India and not between the employees and policy holder. Therefore the insured is liable to follow the rules and regulations pertaining to the contract in force. The complainant has not mentioned anywhere in the proposal form or in the doctor's report that she is a blind person. The insurant has concealed the above facts at the time of submitting the proposal in violation of the Post Office Insurance Fund rules in which the maximum amount of insurance that can be allowed to a blind person is limited to Rs. 20,000/- only. Nowhere in the policy or any RPLI representative has promised bonus for the insured on surrendering the policy after 3 years. According to the notification No. 29-14/98 LI dated 18.11.2003, no bonus will be paid to the policy holder who surrender the policy before 5 years. As the policy has not completed 5 years, the complainant has no right to claim bonus. The opposite parties have been acting only within the purview of the orders which were in existence then and which are still in existence. There is no deficiency in service as alleged on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any relief sought and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs to the opposite parties.
The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P9. She has not been cross-examined. Opposite parties have not filed any affidavit and no documents were marked on their side.
Based on the contentions, following issues are raised for trial: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?
Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant who is a policy holder of the opposite parties claims that she is a blind person, but the opposite parties in their version have contended that, the fact that the complainant is a blind person has not been shown/mentioned anywhere in the proposal form or in the doctor's report of the insurant. According to the complainant as there was no specific question with regard to whether the applicant is blind in the proposal form it has not been mentioned. The proposal form might have been obviously filled in the presence of the agent who is the department staff and in such a situation it is very difficult to believe that these facts are not known to the opposite parties. If at all the opposite parties have dispute with regard to the same, they have not filed any affidavit or marked any documents to prove otherwise.
Admittedly, the complainant is a policy holder of Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy for an insured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with monthly premium of Rs. 215/-. According to the complainant, who is a blind person, the PLI agent had told her that the complainant was free to stop paying the premium after payment of premium for at least 36 months and that they would be refunded the whole amount paid as premium and a bonus and the complainant relied on condition No. 7 of the 'instructions for the insurants', wherein it has been mentioned that 'A policy holder may at any time after payment of premium for not less than 3 years, apply to have his policy paid up for reduced sum assured free from payment of further premium thereon. Bonus is paid on paid up policies also on reduced sum assured for which policy is paid up'. The opposite parties contended that as per the terms of contract printed on the policy document, item No. 14 says that the amount of surrender value are liable to change from time to time and hence there is no breach of contract and the amount of surrender value sanctioned is correct as per existing rules on the subject. The complainant has sworn that she has been made known and sent these policy condition much after the contract and she has further sworn that 'if they stick to the position that I would be legally eligible only to the sum they are now offering me, it means either that the condition clearly laid down in their pass book is highly misguiding, especially for the blind people like me who always need other's help to read from what they wrote, with clear monetary intentions, and that the department of posts did not care to make me well aware of what they really meant'. At this juncture, the matter to be looked into is whether the terms and conditions were brought to the knowledge of the complainant, who is a blind person, as it differs from that in the pass book.
It would clearly appear from the facts of the case that there are two terms and conditions before us for consideration. In the instructions for the insurants there is no mentioning with regard to 'conditions liable to change from time to time'. But in the terms of contract it has been mentioned that these are liable to change from time to time. The complainant's sworn statement that she has received the Ext. P9 terms of contract only after entering into contract has not been challenged by the opposite parties. Hence this statement stands uncontroverted. Moreover the opposite parties have not filed any affidavit or marked any documents in support of the contentions made by them. There is no specific rebuttal of the opposite parties that the complainant was made known the terms and conditions appropriately. Since the complainant being a blind person and being a person of limited means, it was the duty of the postal life insurance authorities to have informed and clarified the complainant with regard to the terms and conditions other than that mentioned in the pass book.
The opposite parties have contended in their version that as per the notification No. 29-14/98 LI dated 18.11.2003, no bonus will be paid to the policy holder who surrender the policy before 5 years and accordingly as the complainant's policy has not completed 5 years, the complainant has no right to claim bonus. The complainant had argued that the policy was taken by the complainant in October 2003 and the conditions have been updated only in November 2003 and further she has contended that at the time of taking the policy such conditions were not there. The complainant has further alleged that the Postal Life Insurance agent had told the complainant that, the complainant was free to stop paying the premium after payment of premium for 36 months and that she would be repaid the whole amount paid up as premium and a bonus. The instructions stipulated in Ext. P5 does not contain any whisper with regard to the fact that the conditions are liable to change from time to time. The authorities ought have clearly stated the same in the pass book issued to the complainant. This should have definitely found a place in the pass book or should have been made known to a blind person like the complainant, if the opposite parties wanted to rely upon that. The opposite parties have not brought out anything in evidence to support their contentions. Taking the above facts and circumstances into consideration, it is found that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by the complainant for 3 years and the bonus as per Ext. P5. The complainant is found entitled for an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards costs and compensation also.
In the result, the opposite parties shall refund Rs. 7,740/- along with the bonus eligible as per Ext. P5 to the complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs within a period of one month.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th January 2009.
S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD :PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
C.C. No. 154/2007 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of blind certificate issued to the complainant. P2 - Photocopy of first premium receipt dated 08.12.2003. P3 - Copy of letter No. Surrender/DA17/R-KL-HQ-CWA-42745 dated 21.09.2006. P4 - Copy of letter dated 20.10.2006 issued by the complainant. P5 - Copy of instructions for the insurants. P6 - Photocopy of letter No. LI/ R-KL-HQ-CWA-42748/ DA-17 dated 09.11.2006. P7 - Copy of letter dated 05.03.2007 issued by the complainant. P8 - Copy of reply notice dated 20.03.2007. P9 - Copy of policy document in respect of Smt. Rajalekshmy. III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
