Complaint filed on: 10-10-2016                                                     Disposed on: 12-01-2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.138/2016

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

Smt.Sunithamma,

W/o. Late Nagaraju,

Aged about 32 years,

Residing at Mangalavada village,

Pavagada taluk

Tumakuru district  

(By Advocate Sri.G.H.Kariyanna)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Post Master, Mangalavada post office, Mangalavada, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District
2. The Superintendent of Post office, Tumakuru Division, Tumakuru

(OP No.1 to 2 by Sri.H.S.Raju)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 and 2, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP No.1 and 2 to pay the benefits covered under the policy and to pay damages for a sum of Rs.50,000=00 towards deficiency in service to the complainant and grant such other relief as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The husband of the complainant by name Sri.Nagaraju.D S/o. Dasaiah was uneducated and during his life time, he made proposal and declaration for an endowment assurance policy on his own life having Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy (RPLI) with the OP No.1 and 2 bearing No.R-KT-EA 608777 under Santhosh (Endowment Assurance) and he made his wife Smt.Suneethamma as a nominee.  The OPs have accepted the said proposal and received the first premium from the deceased Late Sri.Nagaraju.D and he paid the subsequent periodical premium within the prescribed time limit until his death.

          The complainant further submitted that, the complainant’s Husband Sri.Nagaraju.D died on 14-1-2013 and the said fact was informed to the OPs.  The complainant being nominee had approached the OP No.1 and 2 and gave representation claiming the insurance benefit by producing the documents. During the approval of the policy, the OPs have received the documents like Adhar Card, Election Card and Ration Card along with the policy bond, except these documents, the OPs have not insisted any other documents for age proof. The complainant has approached the OPs number of times since from the death of her husband. The OPs have issued an endorsement stating that, the competent authorities has rejected the claim as “the age of the deceased at the time of procurement of policy was 34 years and as per the Adhar Card and ration card his age was 51 years. There is difference of 17 years, for which he was not eligible for taking policy. It is evident that, the OPs have not rendered prompt service as agreed by them by receiving the original documents, which are accepted during the course of accepting policy are sufficient enough to pay benefit to the complainant.

          The complainant further submitted that, deceased Sri.Nagaraju.D was innocent and was not having worldly knowledge and declared his age approximately. Taking advantage of this fact, the OPs has rejected the claim and caused deficiency of service and also caused damage to the complainant. The complainant is a poor and innocent lady and her husband deceased Sri.Nagaraju.D insured his own life for the benefit of his family members. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the relief from the Forum. The complainant has issued a legal notice to the OPs and the said notice served on the OPs, but the OPs have given evasive replay. Hence, the present complaint is filed.     

3. After service of the notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed common objections, contending interalia as under:

The OPs submitted that, the OPs have accepted the said proposal of the insured and received the premiums of the policy, subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The OPs further submitted that, it is false to state that, the OPs have not rendered prompt service as agreed at the time of issuing the policy.

The OPs further submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed in the complaint and other averments made in the complaint are denied as false.   

The OPs further submitted that, the insured viz. Sri.Nagaraju.D i.e. the demised husband of the complainant had obtained the policy bearing No.R-KT-EA-608777 dated 31-3-2010 for the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000=00 and maturity date is 31-3-2036 and monthly premium of Rs.315 and commencement of risk was on 31-3-2010. At the time of proposal, declaration and acceptance of the policy, the said insured had declared his date of birth as 01-JUL-1976 and his age as 34 years. To that effect, he had signed self age declaration form which was duly witnessed by the President of Mangalavada Grama Panchayath, Pavagada Taluk and the Duty Doctor of Primary Health Centre, Mangalavada, Pavagada taluk.

The OPs further submitted that, the complainant submitted that, the claim form for payment of assured sum on 13-3-2013 whereby the complainant has disclosed the date of death of the insured as 14-1-2013. Further in support of claim, the complainant has enclosed Identity card issued by Election Commission of India and Aadhar Card. That on perusal of the said documents, it was disclosed that, the year of birth as stated in Adhar card was 1959 and his age disclosed in Identity card issued by Election Commission of India and his age was 36 years. As such as on the date of obtaining the policy, the actual age of the insured was 51 years as per the Aadhar Card. In the proposal form, he declared his age as 34 years and he had deliberately concealed his actual age. Hence, there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy, which clearly mandates that “as on the date of proposal, declaration and acceptance of the policy, the insured should not cross the age of 50 years. As such the insured had deliberately suppressed material facts regarding his age at the time of obtaining the policy and thereby he had committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and the contract became voidable for suppression of factual information by the insured. As such the claim of the complainant is liable to be rejected. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint against the OPs with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.  

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents, which were marked as Ex-C1 to C36.  The OPs have produced documents where were marked as Ex-R1 to R9. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties and posted the case for orders.

5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
2. What Order?  

6. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: In the affirmative  

          Point no.2: As per the final order below.

REASONS

          7. On perusal of the pleadings, evidence and documents produced by both the parties, it is an undisputed that, the husband of the complainant late Sri.Nagaraju.D S/o. Dasaiah had obtained a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy (RPLI) with the OP No.1 and 2 bearing policy No.KT-EA-608777 under SANTHOSH  (ENDOWMENT ASSURANCE) on 30-3-2010 and made the complainant as a nominee. The complainant’s husband Sri.Nagaraju.D died on 14-1-2013. To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has produced Insurance police/Ex-C1, premium receipts/Ex-C2 to C24.  

          8. The contention of the complainant is that, after death of deceased Sri.Nagaraju.D, the complainant has approached the OPs along with claim form and required documents. But the OPs have rejected the claim of the complainant that as “as per the Aadhar card, the age of the deceased at the time of procurement of policy was 1959, for which the deceased was not eligible for taking the policy”. Further the complainant submitted that, the deceased Sri.Nagaraju.D was innocent and having not worldly knowledge about his age and he was declared his age approximately. Taking advantage of this, the OPs have rejected the claim of the complainant.

          9. On the contrary, the OPs submitted that, the deceased Sri.Nagaraju.D has disclosed that the year of birth as stated in Aadhar card as 1959 and in the voter Identity card the deceased Sri.D.Nagaraju age was 36 years as on 1-1-1995. On perusal of the proposal form the deceased Sri.Nagaraju.D has declared his age as 34 years. Hence, there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy which clearly mandates that as on the date of proposal declaration and acceptance of the policy the insured should not cross the age of 50 years. As such the insured had deliberately suppressed material facts regarding his age at the time of obtaining the policy and committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Further the counsel appearing for the OPs submits that, as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act the Private School Transfer Certificate cannot be considered as an evidence. 

10. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has relied on the following authority/citations.

1. 2013(4) CPR 90 (NC) - M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Through its Sector Manager -v/s- Smt. Rasal Devi Meghwanshi & Anr. In para-17 and 18 of the order the Hon’ble National Commission, it is held that,

“17. It is an undisputed fact that, the petitioner Shri Ram Pal Meghwanshi in his application form no.208 dated 29-9-1998 had declared his age as 51 years. He had also not given his date of birth certificate to support the same. The petitioner had not raised any objection at that point of time and allowed him to purchase the bond. In fact they never raised the issue regarding date of birth till after the death of the Shri Ram Pal Meghwanshi, and the respondents who are nominated by him, claimed the due amount of death help as per clause 10 of the bond. We agree with the State Commission that it is not reasonable and fair to raise the dispute regarding the age after the death of the bond holder.

18. In view of the above circumstances, we find that there is no jurisdictional error or illegality in the order of the State Commission warranting our interference. However, a partial modification is made to the extent that as agreed to by the counsel for the respondents/complainants the amount of loan that is paid by the petitioner will be repaid within a period of 20 years as per the terms and conditions of the bond”.     

2. 2013(1) CPR 33 (NC) – Sub Post Master & Anr. –vs- Santho Kaur. It is held that,

“........ ...... Non Payment of maturity amount for non-submission of succession certificate-State Commission directed to pay terms deposit amount of Rs.1. Lac Deposited by deceased along with interest permissible and costs of Rs.3,000=00 – Such requirement was not indicated and conveyed duly by petitioners to  respondent right in first instance when she visited sub-post office- Complainant started visiting sub-post office soon after death of her husband and even before maturity of term deposit and in every visit she was asked to comply with new requirements and furnish fresh documents- There is no specific denial to her visits and averments made by her in complaint- If sub Post Master who is in charge of sub post office which accepts such term deposits himself is not sure of rule position and takes months together to furnish correct advice, petitioners should be held liable for deficiency in service – Revision petition dismissed”.  

3. 2017(1) CPR 818 (NC) – Azaz Haider –vs- LIC of India. In para-9 of the order the Hon’ble National Commission, it is held that,

"It is pertinent to note that the policy was issued after due verification by the officer of OP 1 and examination of panel of LIC doctors. In the instant case, the OP relied upon the primary school certificate, which shows the date of birth as 24-4-1956 whereas the Kutumb register showed date of birth as 1-2-1969. On perusal of birth certificate issued by Government of UP, Department of Health, it revealed the date of birth as 1-2-1969. The registration was done on 16-2-1994. The certificate was issued by the Registrar (Birth and Death) at Gram Panchayat, Pedi on 23-1-2002. It clearly establishes the date of birth was 1-2-1969. On perusal of certificate issued by School, it is a hand written certificate in which name of school, name of head master and seal is not seen. The certificate is not convincing one. There is 13 years age difference between those two certificates. It is surprising to note that how the agent or OP 1’s official failed to note such vast age difference. It shows negligence, passivity and inaction of the agent and the OPs.

10. It clearly indicates unfairness on the part of OP to save a meager sum of Rs.50,000=00. We are of considered view that dragging the innocent illiterate consumer from the District forum to National Commission itself shows that the OPs are bent upon harassing such like consumers, who have kept the utmost good faith of such insurance companies. The family members of the deceased are struggling to avail genuine claim of Rs.50,000=00 only since 1998 i.e. for almost two decades”

4. 2012(4) CPR 80 (NC) – Post Master Office, Taluk Sindkheda and Anr. –vs- Shri Samachan Subash Patil. It is held that,

“...... ...... Claim was not paid allegedly on ground that policy was in lapsed condition as premium were not paid regularly – complainant allowed by For a below – As premia were accepted by Post office they are estopped from raising any objection regarding policy – There is deficiency in servcie on part of the post office in repudiating claim, though all premia were deposited by policy holder as per terms and conditions of the policy – Nothing to show whether lapse of policy was communicated in any manner to deceased or complainant – Revision petition dismissed on ground of limitation as well as on merit”.    

          11. As per the aforesaid citations produced by the complainant and facts of the case, we hold that, there is deficiency in servcie on the part of the OPs in rejecting the claim of the complainant. Admittedly, at the time of taking the policy, the deceased Sri.Nagaraju.D has produced Election Identity card and Aadhar card as his age proof and the OPs have accepted the proposal form and issued the policy without any objection regarding age of the deceased Sri.D.Nagaraja. Once the OPs had scrutinized the documents and issued the policy and accepted the premium amount, now the OPs are estopped by raising objection regarding age of the deceased Sri.Nagaraju.D.

12. Further, on perusal of the documents produced by the complainant i.e. Ex.C-36/Transfer Certificate of deceased Sri.D.Nagaraja issued by the Headmaster, Govt. Modern Higher Primary School, Mangalavade, Pavagada taluk wherein it is clearly shown that, the complainant’s husband late Sri.Nagaraju.D was born on 31-7-1965.  Hence, considering this document, at the time of obtaining the policy, the complainant’s husband late Sri.Nagaraju.D age was 47 years 5 months and 13 days i.e. within 50 years. Hence, we hold that, the complainant is entitled to get the benefits covered under the policy.  According we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed.

          The OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay benefits covered under the policy bearing No.R-KT-EA-608777 – SANTHOSH (ENDOWMENT ASSURANCE) to the complainant along with 9% interest per annum from the date of claim application to till the date of realization.

          The OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.20,000=00 as compensation and Rs.5,000=00 towards litigation cost to the complainant respectively.

          This order is to be complied by the OP No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of this order.  

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 12^th day of January 2018).

LADY MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT