Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

422/2010

S.Kanaga& 4others - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master General - Opp.Party(s)

C.Paranthaman

02 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  19.11.2010

                                                                        Date of Order :  02.05.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.422/2010

MONDAY THIS  2^ND  DAY OF MAY 2016

 

1.  S. Kanaga,

W/o. Late Sankar @ Om Sankar,  

 

2. S.Malathy, Minor age 12 years,

D/o. Late Sankar @ Om Sankar,

 

3. Sathish, Minor age 3 years,

D/o. Late Sankar @ Om Sankar,

 

4. Sathya Minor aged 2 years,

D/o. Late Sankar @ Om Sankar,

 

Complaint 2 to 4 are minors

Rep. by their natural guardian of

Mother S.Kanaga.

 

5. Tmt. Poothanam,

W/o. Late Annamalai.

 

All are residing at

1-23, Padasalai Street,

Melathangal Post,

Nedungunram 606 807.                                        ..Complainants

 

 

                                      ..Vs..

 

The Postmaster General,

(Rural Postal Life Insurance),

Chennai City Region,

Chennai 600 002.                                                  ..Opposite party  

 

 

For the Complainants                :   M/s.  C.Paranthaman & other

For the opposite party                :   M/s. M. Liagat Ali A.S.G.C.

 

        Complaint  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the amount assured by the deceased Sankar @ Om Sankar and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-  towards deficiency of service  and cost of the complaint to the complainants.

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II      

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

          The  complainant submit that  the 1^st complainant impleaded three minor children and mother in law who are dependent on her after the demise of her husband, filed a complaint that her deceased husband had taken a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party from 5.10.2006 to 5.9.2034.  The commencement of the policy was 5.10.2006. The 1^st complainant’s husband expired on 9.10.2007 due to cardiac arrest and submitted the policy.    In the said policy the deceased husband nominated his wife and his two daughter as nominee to receive the proceeds in the event of any unforeseen risk happens to him  by death.      The complainant further states that the claim application was   submitted to the opposite party by the complainant on 9.7.2008 and she  received a reply dated 28.6.2010 repudiating the claim application dated 9.7.2008 stating that the cause of death Sankar @ Om Sankar was “insecticide poisoning” (Suicide), for sending the above said reply the 1^st opposite party took nearly two years.  As such the act of the opposite party amounts to “deficiency in service” which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.      As such the complainant sought for claim a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the amount assured by the deceased Sankar @ Om Sankar and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-  towards deficiency of service  and cost of the complaint to the complainants.     Hence the complaint.

Written version opposite party in briefly is as follows:

2.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite parties submit that Late Sri.Sankar @ Om Sankar had taken as RPLI Policy for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- payable at the age of 58.   The policy is dated 31.10.2006.  The Late Insured had nominated Smt. S.Kanaga, wife of the late insured  2) Sathish (Minor) son to the late Insured and 3) S.Malathi (Minor) daughter to the late insured with Smt. S.Kanaga as guardian to the minor nominees.  The insured expired on 9.10.2007.   The claim papers submitted by the 1^st nominee Smt.S.Kanaga  to the SPM, Nedunguram S.O. on 9.7.2008 and the same was forwarded to ASP Arni Sub Division for verification.  The verified claim papers were received from ASP Arni, Sub Division on  9.7.2009.     The said Smt. Kanaga has not produced any medical records for the treatment given for his late husband for the past three years, before his death, she instead submitted a false certificate mentioning that her husband died due to heart attack, along with the claim documents, certificates obtained from the VAO, Visamangalam and Panchayat President,.  Based on the report the case was forwarded to Postmaster General, Chennai City Region, Chennai through this office letter No.RPLI/DC-192 dated 27.11.2009.   The Postmaster General, Chennai City Region, again addressed to Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Division on 1.3.2010 to get medical report from St.Thomas Hospital and Leprosy Centre, Chetpattu a nearby town where the late insured was admitted two or three days, prior to his death.  Based on the enquiry report of ASP R.O. Inspector of Post Office, Polur Sub Division, visited the hospital and he has not been provided with factual report and hence she reported to Superintendent of Post offices, Tiruvannamalai that from 5.10.2007 upto 9.10.2007 no patient in the name Om Sankar was admitted.  Finally R.O has got a medical report from the said hospital through post on 31.5.2010 confirming that the insured OM Sankar admitted in their hospital on 8.10.2007 at 9.30 p.m. as a case of insecticide poisoning (Suicide) and his condition did not improved.   At the request of the relatives he was referred to Vellore Medical College Hospital on 9.10.2007.  He died on 9.10.2007 as per the death certificate.   The claim could not be sanctioned in favour of the claimant since she has suppressed the mateiral fact of death.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties.     Therefore this compliant deserve to be dismissed with costs.  

3.  1^st  Complainant has filed her Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the complainants.   Proof affidavit of Opposite party   filed  and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8  were marked on the side of the  opposite party.    

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

5.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4  were marked on the side of the complainant.  Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite party and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8   were marked on the side of the opposite party  and also considered the both side arguments.

6.     The complainant impleaded three minor children and one mother in law who are dependent on her after the demise of her husband filed a complaint that her deceased husband had taken a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party from 5.10.2006 to 5.9.2034.  The commencement of the policy was 5.10.2006. It was stated that the complainant’s husband expired on 9.10.2007 due to cardiac arrest and submitted the policy copy as evidence under Ex.A1 and death certificate under Ex.A2 and legal heir certificate under Ex.A3.   In the said policy the deceased husband nominated his wife and his two daughters as nominees to receive the proceeds in the event of any unforeseen risk happens to him  by death.   It is found in Ex.A3 there is an additional legal heir one daughter and the dependant mother of the deceased was included.   The complainant had lodged the death claim of the deceased being a nominee of the deceased and the claim was rejected by the opposite party on the grounds of suppression of material facts.  

7.     The complainant states that the claim paper were submitted to the opposite party by the complainant on 9.7.2008 and it was supported by the genuineness   of the death which was “due to heart attack” it was duly certified by village Panchayat President  and VAO and it was duly acknowledged by the opposite party.  The opposite party duly recognized the death claim on the said policy which was addressed to the Superintendent of Post offices Tiruvannamalai from the Asst. Superintendent of the Post office, Arni endorsed the statement  and the evidences collected by him were duly forwarded on 8.7.2009 (Ex.B2).   It was replied by the Superintendent of post office Tiruvannamalai to the Postmaster General RPLI section vide their letter dated 27.11.2009 (Ex.B3) and sent his recommendation for settlement of claim vide their letter dated 30.11.2009.  

8.     The contention of the complainant,  that her husband was died due to heart attack and the denial of his valid claim is duly rejected by the opposite party and stating the deceased husband died due to insecticide poisoning  had  given great shock and the attitude of the opposite party had created mental tension and in order to get remedy the complainant sought the assistant of this forum and prayed to get the insurance claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and for metal agony and torture for the deficiency of service is Rs.50,000/- and litigation charges as a claim to be paid.

9.     The opposite party contended that the claim intimation of the deceased person was given to them on 9.7.2008 under Ex.B1 along with claim form which was acknowledged by ASP of Arni Division on 4.7.2009 and the opposite party accepted the claim to be payable vide their letter dated 8.7.2009 addressed to Superintendent of Post office and in turn the SPO has forwarded  their recommendation by Ex.B3 to the Postmaster General on 27.11.2009  to accord approval. 

10.    The opposite party had contended that the complainant had suppressed the material fact and given a false information that the deceased person died due to heart attack which could not be agreed to. Since it was found in their investigation that the deceased person was hospitalized in St.Thomas Hospital, and Leprosy Centre Chetpattu prior to his death (Ex.B4).     The opposite party in Ex.B5 informed that the deceased person was hospitalized in the said hospital for insecticide poisoning. The enquiry made by the opposite party stated that a certificate was obtained by them from St.Thomas Hospital, and Leprosy Centre that the patient was admitted on 8.10.2007 as a case of insecticide poisoning  and was treated in the same hospital and referred to Vellore Medical College Hospital on 9.10.2007 under Ex.B7.  Based on this the opposite party’s Post office insurance rules that insecticide poisoning /suicide cannot be entertained by their reply under Ex.B8.  The written version of the opposite party also confirms that it is not a natural death and it is suicide and pleaded that this case may be dismissed.

11.    Pursuant on the records, i.e. the version, proof affidavit document filed by both parties to the disputes it is found that the complainant’s husband had an insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,00,00/- under Rural Life Insurance from 5.10.2006 to 5^th September  2034 for paying monthly installment of Rs.270/- as premium which was not disputed and the nomination filed in the policy is tallying with the legal heir certificate additional legal heir of one more daughter and mother in law.   The policy issued to Rural  Sector Insurance will satisfy with the certificate issued by the Village Administrative officer and the Village Panchayat President which will be construed as a high evidence in satisfying the Rural Insurance norms.  Accordingly the opposite party also satisfied and made their recommendation to the Postmaster General to accede the settlement of the claim. Unfortunately the investigation of the opposite party who put the evidence that the deceased person died due to insecticide poisoning the opposite party had not submitted the clear proof to substantiate the cause of death is due to insecticide poisoning either by way of Postmortem report and or by police report.  The mere submission of letter in a letter pad of the hospital will not be accepted as evidence.    As per the law the Postmortem report and police report and inquest report by the police are mandatory in the event suicidal death.   We cannot rely upon only the letter or investigation report by other agency will not be taken into consideration as a proof of evidence.    The opposite party had given written version and requested the forum to treat the written version  as an oral argument.    The prima facie evidences are substantiated by the opposite party to prove the deceased person died due to suicide and we considered the information given by the complainant as cardiac arrest or heart attract seems to be a genuine one.  Without a corroborative evidence, we cannot accept the version given by the opposite party as an accepted fact.   Based on this we hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as a policy value with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. from 19.11.2010 to till the date of payment.  The complainant also sought relief for compensation.  Since interest is awarded on the above  said amount Rs.1,00,000/- we are not inclined to order compensation.  Further the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges to the complainant.  

        In the result the complaint is partly allowed the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as a policy value with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from  19.11.2010 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.  

            Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the    2^nd    day of  May    2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1- 31.10.2006         - Copy of Policy.

Ex.A2- 4.3.2008    - Copy of Death Certificate of Sankar @ Om Sankar issued

                             By Vandavasi Taluk Office.

 

Ex.A3- 1.6.2008    - Copy of legal heir ship certificate issued by Tashildar,

                             Vandavasi.

 

Ex.A4- 28.6.2010  - Copy of Rejection of claim application from the

                             1^st opposite party

 

 

Opposite party’s side  documents:

 

Ex.B1- 9.7.2008    - Copy of the claim papers.

Ex.B2- 9.7.2009    - Copy of the claim papers received from Arni Sub-Division.

Ex.B3- 27.11.2009         - Copy  of forwarding letter to the Postmaster General,

                             Chennai.

Ex.B4- 1.3.2010    - Copy of Postmaster General letter to SP Tiruvannamalai for

                             Medical report.

Ex.B5- 15.2.2010  - Copy of Enquiry report of ASP (Inv), R.O.

Ex.B6- 24.3.2010  - Copy of report of Inspector of Posts Polur Sub Division.

Ex.B7- 31.5.2010  - Copy of medical report from the Hospital- Death Certificate.

Ex.B8- 28.6.2010  - Copy of rejection of claim – POIF Rules.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.