Punjab

Sangrur

CC/640/2014

Rahul Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

05 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    640

                                                Instituted on:      02.12.2014

                                                Decided on:       05.05.2015

 

Rahul Singh son of Late Shri Om Parkash R/o Ward No.3, Village Khanauri, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             The Chief Post Master General, Department of Posts, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh-160 017.

2.             Superintendent Post Offices, Department of Posts, Sangrur Division, Sangrur 148 001.

3.             Secretary, Department of Posts, Union of India, New Delhi.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sukhchain Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that mother of the complainant Late Smt. Asha Rani (referred to as DLA for short) was working as GDSMC at Branch Office Banga, who died on 26.5.2011 during her tenure at work.

 

2.             It is further averred that the DLA obtained a postal life insurance policy bearing number PB-138606-P from the OPs and the policy in question commenced on 20.4.2009 and the policy maturity term was 60 years and the sum assured was for Rs.1,00,000/-.  It is further averred that the mother of the complainant died on 26.5.2011 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. After death of the DLA, the complainant submitted all the required documents with OP number 1 and the OP apprised the complainant to come after some days to get the claim.  It is further averred that the complainant visited the office of OPs a number of times, but nothing happened.  It is further stated that thereafter the complainant received a letter from OP number 2 on 5.12.2013, wherein it has been mentioned that the mother of the complainant was under treatment from Rajindra Hospital, during the year 2009 and in reply to that letter the complainant intimated that the DLA never remained under treatment of Rajindra Hospital Patiala.  It is further stated that the OP was also apprised that the DLA remained admitted in Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir, Chandigarh for the first time on 10.9.2010 on account of her illness and was discharged on 24.9.2010 and after that the mother of the complainant was admitted to Command Hospital Chandigarh on 13.5.2011 and was discharged on 23.5.2011.  It is further stated that despite repeated visits to the OPs and serving of legal notice dated 12.3.2014, the claim was not paid. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to release the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, it is admitted that Smt. Asha Rani wife of Late Shri Om Parkash was working as GDSMC at Branch Office Bangan under Sub Office Moonak. It is further admitted that Smt. Asha Rani had procured a postal life insurance (shortly known as PLI) policy bearing number PB-138606-P for Rs.1,00,000/- which was accepted on 20.4.2009 and she expired on 26.5.2011 within three years from the date of purchase of the policy. It is further stated that as per rule 53 of the Post Office Life insurance Rules provides that in cases of early death i.e. before completion of three years from the acceptance of the policy will be investigated thoroughly to enquire, if the insured while submitting the proposal had suppressed material information, which otherwise would not have allowed the proposer to be eligible for PLI.  It is further stated that as Smt. Asha Rani had died within three years of taking the policy in question, the inquiry was entrusted to the Asstt. Superintendent Post Offices (East), Sangrur vide letter dated 27.6.2011 for verification and after inquiry, it was found that Smt. Asha Rani was suffering from cancer and that she was getting her treatment from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala during the year 2009 and that she was got admitted by her son, who is sepahi in army in Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir from 10.9.2010 to 24.09.2010 in serious condition with diagnosis carcinoma gall bladder with obstructive jaundice         wcmix advanced (ODM) and was advised to get treatment from Oncology OPD.  It is further stated that she was suffering from advanced stage of cancer during September, 2010.   It is further stated that the DLA has violated the terms and conditions of the policy written at serial number 10 of the proposal form by submitting a false declaration in the proposal form.   It is stated further that had the DLA stated the correct facts about her ill health at the time of proposal, further medical reports would have been called from specialist doctors without which the proposal could not having been accepted and the opinion of specialist would have been obtained by the postal authorities before accepting the proposal.    As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-5 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-6 copy of letter, Ex.C-7 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-9 copies of letters, Ex.C-10 copy of certificate from doctor, Ex.C-11 affidavit, Ex.C-12 copy of letter, Ex.C-13 copy of receipt, Ex.C-14 copy of letter, Ex.C-15 copy of receipt, Ex.C-16 copy of letter, Ex.C-17 copy of receipt, Ex.C-18 copy of letter, Ex.C-19 copy of policy cover note, Ex.C-20 to Ex.C-22 copies of letters, Ex.C-23 to Ex.C-24 affidavit and receipt, Ex.C-25 copy of proposal form, Ex.C-26 to Ex.C-27 copies of hospital record, Ex.C-28 to Ex.C-29 copies of discharge slip, Ex.C-30 affidavit, Ex.C-31 copy of letter, Ex.C-32 copy of PA 40 form  and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs-1 copy of letter dated 17.6.2013, Ex.OPs-2 letter dated 9.4.2013, Ex.OPs-3 letter dated 9.7.2013, Ex.OPs-4 copy of letter dated 30.3.2013, Ex.OPs-5 letter dated 25.3.2013, Ex.OPs-6 copy of letter dated 9.5.2014, Ex.OPs-7 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the DLA is insured under the PLI with the Ops for Rs.1,00,000/- under policy number PB-138606-P on 20.04.2009.   It is further admitted that the DLA died during the subsistence of the insurance policy on 26.5.2011. 

 

7.             In the present case, it is not in dispute that the DLA took the PLI policy from the Ops on 20.4.2009 and she died on 26.5.2011 during the first three years of the policy.  The learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that since the death of the DLA took place within the first three years due to cancer, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim. 

 

8.             In the present case, the question for determination before us arises whether the DLA was suffering from cancer at the time of getting the insurance policy in question and whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim or not.

 

9.             We have very carefully perused the case file and find that the Ops have not produced any documentary evidence or any medical record of any hospital or Rajindra Hospital  Patiala showing that the DLA was suffering from the cancer disease at the time of getting the insurance policy in question on 20.4.2009 or even before the getting of the insurance policy.   Moreover, it is the specific case of the complainant that the DLA remained admitted in Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir, Chandigarh for the first time on 10.09.2010 on account of her illness and was discharged on 24.09.2010 and further remained admitted in the Command Hospital, Chandigarh for the period from 13.5.2011 to 23.5.2011.  The above said both periods of admission of the DLA in the Command Hospital, Chandi Mandir pertains to after obtaining the insurance policy.   In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the Ops that the DLA was suffering from the cancer at the time of obtaining the insurance policy or she was having any pre existing disease at the time of getting the insurance policy.   In the reply of the Ops, the Ops have mentioned that the initial stage of cancer may be from January to April, 2009, but the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to support such a contention.  Moreover, the claim of the complainant cannot be rejected on mere assumption of the OPs that the DLA may have been suffering from cancer from January to April, 2009.  In the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops have wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant, as the Ops have failed to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate their contention that the DLA was suffering from any cancer disease.

 

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from  the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 2.12.2014 till realisation. Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of consolidated compensation and litigation expenses.

 

11.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 5, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member