DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  11^th  day of July,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                   Date of Filing:  11/01/2021

     CC/7/2021

Narayanaswamy,

S/o.Arumugan,

Chempathu veedu,

Vattakathara, Thenkurrissi

Palakkad – 678 671                                                   -          Complainant

(Party in person)  

                                                                                     Vs

1.Postmaster,

   Thenkurissi No.1

   Thenkurissi – 678 671

2. The Senior Superintendent

     Postal Department,

     Palakkad Division,

     Palakkad.                                                                -           Opposite Parties

(OPs by Authorised Officer)  

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Undisptued facts are that the complainant availed a Postal Life Insurance bearing No.R-KL-EA-422621 on 1/11/2010.  The monthly premia was Rs.880/-.Complainant remitted premium for 9 months. Thereafter the payment was discontinued.  The policy period was till 1/11/2020. After maturation date the complainant contacted the opposite parties for return of premium amount he had remitted. His claim was repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the remitted amount would be returned only if the complainant had remitted atleast 36 months of premium. As  the complainant had failed to remit 36 months of premium,  it cannot be considered as “Auto Paid Up”. The complainant’s policy was considered as lapsed. OPs dispute the claim of the complainant that cause of cessation of payment of premium was that the complainant was suffering from chicken pox.
2. Crux of the dispute revolves around the legal validity  of the repudiation of the claim of the complainant for premium remitted by the complainant.   Since the facts are undisputed, we are not adverting to the documents produced by the parties.
3. Facts being undisputed and it is only the Rules  relating to Post Office Life Insurance that is to be considered, we directed the representative of the opposite parties to produce the said Rules.  
4. As already stated supra and as held by the opposite parties,  the rights and liabilities of the insurers and insured  are dealt with under the Post Office Life Insurance Rules 2011  (Herein after referred to as  “PLI Rules”). The relevant Rules pertaining to the facts and circumstances of this case, are reproduced herein below:

“Rule 5(20) : “Lapsing of Policy” – a policy which is in existence more than three years shall be as treated lapsed if premium / premia remain unpaid for more than twelve months.

 Rule 5 (27) : “Policy in Force” means a policy for which all the due premia have been paid regularly and such policy has neither become ‘void’ nor ‘lapsed’ under any rule of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules. 

Rule 5(37) : “Void” means a policy which is less than three years duration and any premium(s) that have become due, not paid either on the first day of the month for which the premium is due or within the period of grace”. 

  Subsequent to the aforesaid rules what is relevant are the provision contained under the head “Lapsing of policy within 36 months and settlement of death claims”.

“Rule 56(1) : The policy for which any premium/premia have became due, not paid either on first day of the month for which premium is due  or within the period of grace allowed as per rule 44, the policy shall become void”.

5. On going through the aforesaid Rules it is apparent that the rules issued under the authority of the Govt of India leave no stone unturned when it comes to a case of payment of premium, issuance of policy, failure to effect payment etc., 
6. The next question is whether the policy holder was informed of the aforesaid terms and conditions.  Ext.A1 is the policy certificate issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. The terms and conditions under which the policy was issued to the complainant are stated in detail on the reverse of Ext.A1 document. Even if we consider whether the complainant was unable to go through Ext.A1 as the same is in English, Ext.A3 premium payment booklet, in its reverse, contains  the six major  instructions to policy holders.  Instruction 5 reads as below:

“If the premium is not paid continuously during the first 36 months, then the policy will be treated as lapsed.  ({]m_eyanÃm¯Xmbn amdp¶XmWv)”.

These  instructions are  seen in both Malayalam and English. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the complainant that he was not informed of the terms and conditions.

7. The further question, whether the complainant was informed of the fact that he can file an application for return of premium, is also answered by the complainant himself. In line 9 to 18, paragraph 2, page 2 of the proof affidavit,  the complainant deposes that he had filed applications for refund of premium before the Senior Superintendent, Palakkad Division and Director of Postal Service, Kozhikkode. Hence, it is clear that the complainant had availed the remedies available to him. We are not inclined to sit in judgment, revision  or appeal over the decision rendered by the aforesaid  authorities.
8. Yet another factor that comes before us for consideration is whether the complainant was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from continuing with the policy. His case is that he suffered from chicken pox which prevented him from payment of premium in time.  What prevented the complainant from approaching the opposite party once he had recuperated and revive the lapsed policy by availing the benefit provided under the Rules is not stated. We cannot hold that the complainant was suffering from chicken pox from the period after he had paid his last premia till the date of its maturation. Fact remains that his  pleading regarding being afflicted with chicken pox is not proved in any manner.
9. The aforesaid  being the facts we are unable to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   The complaint is therefore dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the plight of the complainant that he is a commoner trying desperately to avail the amounts paid by him, though legally irrecoverable, we are not ordering cost to the opposite parties. 

            Pronounced in open court on this the 11^th  day of July, 2022.

                                                                 Sd/-                                                  

Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

        Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                        Member     

                               Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

 Ext.A1 – Original  Acceptance letter of RPLI proposal dated 2/12/2010

Ext.A2 –   Original policy schedule bearing No.R-KL-EA-422621

Ext.A3 –   Original premium receipt book for policy No. R-KL-EA-422621

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Copy of   Acceptance letter of RPLI proposal dated 2/12/2010

Ext.B2 – Printout of  Policy history

Ext.B3  - Printout of policy history.

Ext.B4 – Original of application dated 4/12/2020

Ext.B5 – Copy of communication bearing No.CCC/RTI/99/2020-21 dated 8/12/2020

Ext.B6 – Printout of email communication dated 6/1/2021 alongwith annexrues.

Ext.B7 – Original of order in appeal  bearing no.P6/RTI/A-84/2020 dated 27/1/2021

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

NIL

Cost :  No cost allowed.

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.