Order No.21 dt.03-05-2016
This is an application u/s. 12 of C.P. Act filed by the petitioner, Nur Nehar Bibi is the mother-in-law of Complainant No. 2., Easmin Khatun is the wife of the Safikuoor Rahaman and they are the nominee of the said RPLI Policy being No. R-WB-SG-EA-33865 and commencement of the said policy is 31.03.2005 sum assured 1,00,000/-, mode of payment of the premium of the said policy monthly Rs. 475/-, date of issue of the policy on 30.06.2005 and the maturity date of the said RPLI policy is 31st March,2022.
The case of the petitioner is that the policy holder opened the said policy from the Bahadurpur P.O. P.S. Kaliachak Dist.- Malda. The proposal of the said policy was on 07.03.2005 and the date of declaration was on 07.03.2005 and the acceptance of policy was on 31.03.2005 and she further said that the maturity date of the said policy is on 31.03.2022. The policy holder Sofiquoor Rahaman could not pay the monthly premium regularly due to his financial scarcity for which there was dues of monthly premium and the RPLI is not in life and he made a prayer to revive the RPLI to the Postal Authority. He gave last premium on 31.05.2008. Subsequently, Sofiquoor Rahaman filed a petition before the O.P. Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Supdt. Of P.O. Malda Division and the Post Master of Bahadurpore Branch P.O. on 29.12.2008 along with RPLI Original Premium Receipt Book (PR Book). The Supdt. Of Post Office, Malda Division sent the application (petition) to the Dy. Divisional Manager of RPLI Office of the Chief Post Master General i.e. O.P. No.5 on 23.04.2009. Sofiquoor Rahaman subsequently died on 28.02.2010 at SSKM Hospital Kolkata due to accident. O.P. sent a reply letter on 04.01.2011 after demise of the said policy holder. The deceased life assured prior to his death deposited P.R. Book by which payment of monthly installment had to be paid to Post Master Bahadurpur on 29.12.2008 During the life time Safiquor Rahaman did not receive any letter regarding payment of arrear premium for revival of the said RPLI Policy from the Authority. It reveals from the letter dt. 04.01.2011 the Postal Authority stated that the payment of dues installment cannot arise at all and the question for payment of laps premium more than twelve months cannot be arise at all. So the question of application of the revival of the policy cannot be arises at all after the death of the life assured. After the death of the life assured the complainant submitted the claim form along with documents with a forwarding letter to Supdt. Of Post Offices, Malda Division and after proper enquiry in respect of that case the Asst. Supdt. Of Post Offices Malda Central Sub Divisional sent the report to the Supdt. Of Post Offices Malda on 27.07.2012 with a copy to GDS, BPM. Thereafter, Supdt. Of Post Office Malda intimated to the Claimants vide No.J/RPLI/ Death Claim/ Corr/Malda on 26.02.2014. The policy remained unpaid more than 12 months. So the question of payment of unpaid premium from June 2008 to February 2010 cannot be arise at all as the life assured died on 28.02.2010 and payment letter received on 04.01.2011 by the present petitioner.
O.P. No. 2 filed a written version denying all material allegations contending inter alia that the proposal form and policy documents establish that Easmin Khatun wife of the deceased Sofiquor Rahaman and Noor Nehar Bibi mother of the deceased those are the nominees of the said Policy No. WB-SG-EA-33865, Sum Assured Rs.100000/- premium amount of Rs. 475/- per month have been registered as first and second nominee with 50% share each. Safiquor Rahaman deposited the premium up to May, 2008. After that Safiquor Rahaman did not deposit any subsequent premium. Rather he applied for revival of the policy vide application dt. 29.12.2008. Safiquor Rahaman died on 28.02.2010 without depositing arrear premium. The O.P. No.2 also admitted that on 06.08.2009 revival sanction memo had been dispatched to the insurant by registered post from Kolkata but the insurant did not deposit the arrear premium and he died on 28.02.2010 and since then premium was remain unpaid for more than 12 months. i.e. from June 2008 to February, 2010. The Policy became void as per POIF Rule. Void policy only gets the auto death paid up value on the date of maturity or after maturity. After receiving the legal notice from the petitioner’s Advocate, O.P. No.1 sent a reply by sending a letter vide No. WB/ SG/PLI/legal notice/13-14 dt. 30.10.2014stating that petitioner has no right as the policy is already void.
So the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in this case and the case of the petitioner must be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the same following issues are framed:-
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Easmin Khatun examined herself as P.W.-1 and Ajijur Rahaman, Husband of Nur Nehar Bibi examined himself as P.W. 2. The documents filed by petitioners are Exts 1 to 10. Policy Deed marked Ext.-1, Xerox Copy of Petition to the Supdt. Of Post Office dt. 29.12.2008 marked Ext.-2, Letter from the office of the CPMG dt. 4/1/11 Ext.-3, Death Certificate of Safiquor Rahaman marked Ext. 4(consisting 7 pages), Inquiry Report of Supdt. Of Post Malda Ext. 5, Xerox copy of enclosure Ext-6, Xerox Copy of Letter from Asst. Supdt. Of Post of Malda, Ext.-7, Xerox Copy of letter from Asst. Director Consumer Affairs & FBP Malda Region, Ext.-8, Xerox Copy of letter from Supdt. Of Post Malda dt. 26.02.2014, Ext.-9, Lawyer’s Notice to the APMG NB Sikim Region Siliguri dt.22.10.2014, Ext.-10.
:DECISION WITH REASONS:
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4
All the issues are taken up together, as they are co-related, for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
Record does not reflect anything regarding the maintainability of the case and the case is well maintainable.
P.W.-1 Easmin Khatun is the wife of the Safiquor Rahaman and she narrated the facts that her husband did not pay the monthly premium after May, 2008 onwards. It is admitted fact that the husband of the P.W.-1 made an application to the Postal Authority with a prayer to revive his PLI Policy and allow him to deposit the lapsed premium by instalments on 29.12.2008. The policy of the deceased became void when he died without giving any premium.
It is evident and established that the said RPLI Policy of Safiqoor Rahaman was not in motion or alive because of the fact that he did not pay the premium from June, 2008 to December, 2008 and that is why he made a prayer to give live or to keep the book in motion in regularize manner after allowing him to deposit the arrear dues by installments. This fact is not disputed and the RPLI book was sent by the Postal Department to their higher authority to regularize the said RPLI Policy. The right of the deceased Safiqoor Rahaman would be justified if he deposited the money in his life time.
The ill fate and the ill luck caused the Safiquor to left the earth forever due to an accident. It is fact that this Safiquor Rahaman did not pay any arrear till his death.
P.W.-1 depose in this case and she narrated the case of the complaint petition. She stated on dock that the Postal Department allowed the application of her husband and directed to deposit the lapse premium before 31st July, 2011. Ld. advocate for the petitioner submits that prior to that the Postal Department was aware the fact of demise of the said RPLI holder and several documents sent to the Postal Department and the Postal Department knowing the facts allow the petition filed by the RPLI holder on 29.12.2008. The sum and substance of the argument of the Ld.advocate of the petitioner is that if the Postal Department acknowledge the receipt of the letter dt. 29.12.2008 i.e. Ext.-2 prior to the death of the said Safiquor Rahaman he ought to have been deposited the due amount by instalments but this information is not sent by the Postal Department during the life time of the said Safiquor Rahaman. Ld.advocate for the O.P. submits before this Forum that Safiquor Rahaman failed to deposit the premium regularly and that is why the RPLI Insurance Policy is not in life and temporarily dead. As Safiquor Rahaman made a prayer for revival by allowing him to deposit the arrear amount by installment then it cannot be said that the Postal Department have any latches in this regard. Safiquor did not purchase any service as soon as his RPLI Policy temporarily is not in active form.
We are getting from the Terms and Conditions of the literature in No. 8 “ INSTRUCTION FOR THE INSURANTS ”
“ If in the case of a policy before completion of thirty six months of proposal if the premium is not paid before the last day of each month (1st April in case of March) such policy will become void and will cease to be active at the end of 6 months from the 1st day of the Month for which the premium was due. The premia paid thereon will be forefitted if the policy is not. Similarly on a policy of more than 3 years duration, if premium is not paid on or last day of any month in which premia falls due. Such policy will become void and will cease to be active at the end of 12 months from the first day of month for which the premia was due. ”
“If an application for revival of the policy is made to the Post Master General in whose postal jurisdiction premium on the policy is paid, the policy may be allowed to be revived subject to payment of all arrears of premia with interest due thereon and on production of good health certificate. ”
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the said RPLI Policy is already dead and no life. To submit good health certificate that indicates that the person be actual person who started the RPLI Policy must be alive and he can only revive the policy with the permission of the authority after depositing the arrear premiums along with good health certificate.
We are also getting the application filed Esmin Khatun and Nur Nehar Bibi along with claim form for payment of Post Office Insurance Policy of the deceased Md. Safiqoor Rahaman on 26.04.2012 i.e. Ext. -4 ( 7 pages) and prior to that they did not file any application to the Postal Department.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the Postal Department has latches not to revive the RPLI Policy during the life time of the petitioner. It is true that application filed by the Safiqoor Rahaman on 29.12.2008 but the unfortunate fate though the Authority allow to deposit the amount by installments but the policy holder expired.
In this case we do not think that there is any deficiency on the part of the Postal Department. There is no evidence that during the life time the petitioner tried to deposit the due amount along with medical good health certificate for reviving the RPLI.
As per the P.O. Life Insurance Rules 57 1(b) reads as follows:
“If within the above said period of twelve months the policy does not become a claim either due to the death of the life assured or on completion of term of the policy and if no application for surrender value or for making the policy paid up policy is received within the period, the policy will be automatically kept alive only to the extent of its paid up value provided such paid up value is not less than Rs.10,000/-.”
From the rules and the procedure it is crystal clear that the Postal Department has no latches and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.
In the result, the case fails.
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that Malda D.F.C Case No. 85/2014 is hereby dismissed without any cost.
