BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 1/2013.
THIS THE 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Roopa Bandi S/o. Late Venkatesh Bandi
Age: 38 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o. H.No. 8-11-182/5, Panchamukhi Colony (Bolamandoddi Road) Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Deputy General Manager (PLI) Postal
Department, Karnataka Circle Bangalore.
2. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Raichur Sub-Division, Raichur.
Date of institution :- 08-01-2013.
Date of disposal :- 06-09-2013.
Complainant represented by Sri. Venkatgiri, Advocate
Respondent No-1 & 2 represented by D.G.P.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondents U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is the legally wedded wife of Venkaesh Bandi who was working as Village Accountant at Askihal, Raichur. The complainant’s husband had obtained the Postal Insurance Policy under Santhosh Endowment Assurance Scheme of the Postal Department. The risk was commencing from 09-01-2009 and monthly premiums payable was Rs. 1,005/- and the sum assured was Rs. 3,00,000/-. The complainant is the nominee under the said policy. The complainant’s husband Venkatesh Bandi died on 23-08-2010. The complainant being the nominee under the policy made claim with the Respondent to pay the amount assured under the policy along with required documents. However the Respondents repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that the claim was rejected under Rule 39 of the Insurance Act, as the insured had not credited the premium for 12/09 which was within two years from the date of policy and therefore the policy is treated as lapsed. The Respondent falsely created the said reason for rejecting the claim of the complainant. The complainant’s husband paid premiums regularly till his death. The rejection of the claim of the complainant by the Respondent is illegal, unfair and amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant got issued legal notice to the Respondents calling upon them to settle the claim which was served on them. But they have not settled the claim of the complainant. Therefore the complaint seeking compensation from the Respondents as prayed for.
3. The Respondent filed the written version stating that, the deceased Venkatesh Bandi had not paid the premium for the month of December 2009. The complainant has to prove that she is the sole legal heir and nominee of the deceased under the policy. As per Rule 39 the policy had lapsed for non payment of the premium for the month of December 2009. The contents of Para-5 of the complaint are denied as false. The insured has also to check whether the premium is correctly paid or not. When the pass book was given to the insured, for missing credit he could have contacted to the Post Office and paid the premium in time. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. The contents of Para-6 of the complaint are far from truth. In the pass book of insured after paying November 2009 premium he paid for January-2010 to June 2010. The Respondents are following the Department Rules and it is the fault of the insured as he has not followed the instructions mentioned in the policy bond and in the premium receipt book. The contents of Para-10 of the complaint are false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. There is no cause of action to file the complaint. Therefore the complaint be dismissed in the interest of justice.
5. Complainant to prove her case filed her affidavit evidence which is marked as PW-1 and relied on fifteen documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15. The Respondents to prove their case as their evidence filed one affidavit which is marked as RW-1 and relied on five documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5.
6. Arguments heard on Respondents side.
7. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents’ against her.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
8. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In the affirmative.
(2) Partly in the affirmative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
9. The issuance of Life Insurance Policy in favour of the deceased life assured Venkaesh Bandi, is not disputed by the Respondent. On the death of the life assured the Respondent repudiated the claim made by the wife of deceased assured, she being the nominee under the said policy, on the ground that Insurance policy stood lapsed for non payment of premium due for the month of December 2009. However on perusal of materials placed before us it is found that, the improper approach of the Respondents and mis-handling of the matter by them resulted in lapse of the policy for which the deceased life assured cannot be held responsible. According to the Respondents the premium due for the month of December-2009 was not paid by the deceased life assured. However according to them the premiums due were paid by the deceased life assured had paid the premium for the month of January-2010 upto June-2010. As per Ex.P-2 the said premiums for six months was paid in the month of January-2010 itself. It was on the very next month of default of payment of premium. As per instruction No-2 given in the pass book the premium payable for a particular month has to be paid within the last day of the said month and in case of failure the insured has to pay 12% interest as penalty. So there is provision for receipt of the premium due on the subsequent months by imposing fine. Therefore while accepting the premium for six months in the month of January-2010 the authority concerned could have received the premium due for the month of December 2009 out of the six months premium paid by the deceased life assured and then balance could have been adjusted towards the premium of five months from January to May. Then it would have been proper approach and same is not followed by the concerned authority of the Respondents Postal Department. It is due to lax of attitude on the part of officials concerned without any concern about the damage that would be caused due to their act. They behaved in a mechanical way without any human or humane touch which defeated the purpose for which the Insurance policy was obtained by deceased life assured. A person obtains Life Insurance Policy to see that his family depending on him would be safe in case of his untimely death and to see that they are not thrown on the road after his death. But now as regards the complainant is concerned, she has made to fall on the road by denying the amount assured under the policy by the Respondents.
10. Besides this, the counsel for the complainant argued that by not issuing notice intimating the lapse of the policy and acceptance of the subsequent premiums by the Respondents amounted to revival of the policy and therefore repudiation is not justified. In support of this contention he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2012) CPJ 21 (NC). As per the said decision the non communication of lapse of the policy by the Respondents amounted to serious failure on the part of the Respondents and the acceptance of subsequent premiums amounts to revival of the policy. Here in this case also the lapse of the policy was not intimated to the deceased life assured and thereafter the acceptance of the subsequent premiums for six months amounts to revival of the policy. Therefore the Respondents cannot repudiate the claim made by the complainant. This repudiation amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly this point is answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
11. As the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents she is entitled for compensation for the same along with the amount assured under the policy i.e, Rs.3,00,000/- with interest and cost of the proceedings which shall be as per final order. Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.
POINT NO.3:-
12. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from Respondents.
The complainant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount.
The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service from the Respondents.
The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from the Respondents.
Respondents are given one month time from the date of this order for making payment of the above said amount.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 06-09-2013)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
