Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/48/2013

Magashwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Officer, Thiruppugalur Post, Nagapattinam and Two others. - Opp.Party(s)

S.Veerapandian

30 Jul 2014

ORDER

  Date of Filing       : 04.12.2013

                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 30.07.2014

                                                                   

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED, B.Com.,   ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                              …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.48/2013

 

DECIDED ON THIS   30^th  DAY OF JULY  2014.

 

 

            S. Mageswari,

            W/o Senthil Kumar

            Sannathi Street,

            Thiruppugalur Village,

            Nagapattinam  District.                                               …..      Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

                     

1. The Postal Officer,

Thiruppugalur Post Office,

Thiruppugalur, Nagapattinam  Taluk.

2. The Superintendent ,

           Superintendent of Postal Department,

           Nagapattinam.

3. The Post Master General,(Central Zone)

           Tiruchirapalli                                                        …...Opposite parties

 

 

 

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 15.07.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru. S.Veerapandian, Counsel for the complainant, Govt. Pleader, counsel for the opposite parties and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

 

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act 1986. 

                        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that she paid the sum of Rs.304/- to the 1^st opposite party towards premium under the Postal Life Insurance Scheme as per the request made by the latter and obtained the receipt therefor.  But subsequently she is given neither the policy nor any other documents relating to the said scheme.  In spite of repeated requests made by the complainant in person to the 1^st opposite party, he was evasive without issuing the policy to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant could not pay the subsequent premiums even though she was ready and willing to pay it.   For the notice sent by the complainant through her lawyer, the 2^nd opposite party passed an order on 19.09.202013 for the refund of the said Rs.304/- and the copy of the order was sent to the complainant.   No mention is made in that order as regards the payment of interest to the said premium amount Rs.304/- as claimed by the complainant.  The failure on the part of the opposite parties to issue the policy under the Postal Life Insurance Scheme to the complainant, despite the receipt of the first premium amount  from her is sheer deficiency of service on their part.  The complainant therefore prays for an order to direct the 1^st opposite party to pay the 1^st premium amount of Rs.304/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 30.03.2012 till date of payment, Rs.10000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant, Rs.50000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and  Rs.10000/- towards cost of this litigation and to grant and such and other relief as this Forum may deem fit.

                        3.  The gist of the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party and adopted by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties is that the complainant had not under gone the medical examination at the nearest Primary Health Centre and only with her medical fitness certificate, the proposal Form will be accepted by the opposite parties for issuing the policy.  Since the complainant had not under gone medical examination and submitted the proposal form policy was not issued to her.  The payment of the 1^st premium amount of Rs.304/- is only provisional in nature.  As there is no policy issued in favour of the complainant, there is no contract of insurance between the complainant and the opposite parties and the complaint itself is not maintainable, in as much as the complainant is not the consumer and there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Soon after the receipt of the lawyer’s notice as per the POIF Rules 22, the premium amount was ordered to be refunded to the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

                        4.  The complainant has filed her proof affidavit in support of her claim and filed 3 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A3.  The 2^nd opposite party has filed his proof affidavit in support of their defence and no documents are filed, as evidence on their side.  Written arguments have been submitted by both the sides.

5. Points for determination in this case are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  parties ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

6. Point 1: The complainant has paid the 1^st premium under Postal Life Insurance Scheme to the 1^st opposite party on 30.03.2012, as would be evidenced by Exhibit A1 and it is not in dispute.  The office copy of the lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant is filed as Exhibit A2 and the receipt of the said notice by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties is not denied by them.  The Exhibit A3 is the order passed by the 2^nd opposite party for the refund of the said premium of Rs.304/- to the complainant in pursuance of the said lawyer’s notice sent by her.

                        7.  The contention of the opposite parties is that the said Exhibit A1 is the provisional receipt for the payment of the premium amount and the insurance policy could be issued only on the complainant’s undergoing medical examination at the nearest Primary Health Centre and submitting her proposal Form, to the 1^st opposite party. As the complainant has failed to undergo medical examination, the policy could not be issued to her.  The scrutiny of Exhibit A1 would go to show that it is a premium receipt and not a provisional receipt. At the place for policy number in Exhibit A1 the words “new proposal” are mentioned.  Therefore it is clear that the premium is received by the 1^st opposite party in lieu of the insurance policy to be issued to the complainant.  Having collected premium from the complainant on 30.03.2012 at the end of the financial year, the 2^nd opposite party ought to have taken the initiative and steps to see that the complainant had undergone medical examination and submitted  her proposal form for issuing the policy.  From Exhibit A1 it is understood that the 2^nd opposite party who is very much interested in collecting the premium to achieve his target of collection for that financial year, is not evincing the same interest for securing the proposal form from the complainant. Not even a reminder or any letter is sent to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party asking her to submit the proposal form with the doctor’s certificate.

                        8.  The complainant who is an unsophisticated and not a literate person ought have been guided and directed by the 1^st opposite party for issuing the policy in her favour immediately on the receipt of the 1^st premium amount without any delay.  The said life insurance scheme itself is meant for the benefit and welfare of the rural people only.  In such, case the 1^st opposite party has failed in his duty to get the medical examination certificate as well as the proposal form from the complainant in time, for issuing the policy.  The averment at the 3^rd paragraph of the counter as well as the proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party that “ due to heavy procurement of insurance policies during the month of March 2012, the non-acceptance of this policy was not noticed”,  throws light on the negligence of duty on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore the failure to issue the insurance policy after receiving the 1^st premium from the complainant is not only negligence of duty on the part of the 1^st opposite party, but also sheer deficiency of service on his part and the complainant cannot be made liable even to the least extent for not issuing the policy by them.

                        9. Point 2: In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties are directed to jointly or severally pay the premium amount of Rs.304/-(Rupees three hundred and four only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 30.03.2012, till date of its realization and to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant owing to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of this litigation, within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of its realization.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this    30^th   day of  July 2014.

 

 

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

List  of document filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.30.03.2012: The Xerox copy of the Premium receipt of the complainant.

Ex.A2/Dt.19.09.2013: The Office copy of the notice sent by the complainant through her

    lawyer to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

Ex.A3/Dt.18.10.2013: The office copy of the refund order passed by the 2^nd opposite party.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.48/ 2013

Order Dt.: 30.07.2014.