IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smti S.Bora
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.05/2018
1.Sri Kaushik Borah : Complainant
S/o Late Tankeswar Borah
R/o ofVill: Kalitagaon (Belorguri)
P.O Bihaguri, P.S-Tezpur
Dist:Sonitpur (Assam)-784153
Vs.
Department of Post(RPLI)
1.The Postmaster : Opp. party
Head Post Office -Tezpur, PIN-784001
2. The Superintendant of Post Offices
Darrang Division,Tezpur-784001
3.The Assistant Director (PLI),Assam Circle,
M.G Road, Meghdoot Bhawan, Guwahati-781001
Appearance:
Mr. S.K.Biswas, Adv. : For the Complainant
Mr. F.Haque, Adv. : For the Opp. party
Date of argument : 02-04-2019, 10-04-2019
Date of Judgment : 25-04-2019
JUDGMENT
- This is a Consumer Complaint Case for compensation on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Insurance Company.
- The facts leading to the complaint, in brief, are that Complainant of this case Sri Kaushik Borah is a nephew of late Bhumidhar Bora. During his life time, 3(three) nos of Rural Postal Life Insurance Policies (in short RPLI) were obtained by Late Bhumidhar Borah. In respect of all the Policies nos viz.,(i)Policy No.R-AS-EA-286993 dtd. 15-02-2011, (ii) Policy No.R-AS-EA-298024 dtd 28-02-2011 and (iii) Policy No.R-AS-EA-317184 dtd 31-03-2011, Complainant was made nominee. It so happened that during his lifetime all the policies got lapsed from July,2011 and the insured Bhumidhar Borah could pay the amount of premium of the three Policies at a time on 11-07-2012, due for the months from July,2011 to July,2012, which was accepted by the department of Post. The Complainant Sri Kaushik Borah, after death of his insured-uncle Bhumidhar Bora, being the nominee, submitted claim application before the opp. party for settlement of the claims in respect of the Policies. The opp. party No.3 sanctioned the claim value including bonus in respect Policy No.R-AS-EA-286993 to the complainant. But the opp. party No.1, by its letters dtd. 28-01-2016 rejected the claims in respect of the two other Policies under Rule 56 (2)(a) of Post Office Life Insurance (hereinafter referred to as POLI) Rules 2011 (wrongly quoted by the opposite party in the aforesaid letters as POIF Rule,2011) terming the same as void at the time of insurant. Being aggrieved by such rejection, the Complainant is therefore, before the Forum alleging that the opp. party with the intention to deprive the Complainant from his legal right has demonstrated its negligence and deficiency in service. The Complainant has thus, prayed relief of Rs.2,00,000/-as the sum assured of the two rejected Policies with bonus and interest thereon, plus Rs.50,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment mental pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
- The opp. party No.2 for himself and on behalf of the other two opp. parties had contested the case with a written version. It has been contended thereunder that the Complainant, who was appointed as Sub Postmaster of Bihaguri Sub-Post Office, taking undue advantage of his post, had fraudulently made revival of the Policies by violating the relevant departmental rules No.56(2)(a) that governs revival of lapsed RPLI Policy and revived the same after a lapse period of 13(thirteen) months, without obtaining prior order for revival, when the policy is a comparatively new one i.e., less than 3 years old.
- As regards the settlement of one Policy amongst the three, it had been contended by the opp. party that the Policy No.R-AS-EA-286993 was settled by the department due to oversight and now the department is contemplating recovery action from the claimant. Asserting that rejection in respect of the two Policies were rightly made, the opp. party, has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- Complainant tendered his evidence-in-chief on affidavit exhibiting 11 nos of documents thereunder. Opposite party, represented by its Supdt. of Post Offices, Darrang Divn., has tendered his evidence-in-chief on affidavit, and has proved few documents as exhibits. Witnesses on either side were cross-examined.
We have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record including written argument filed on both sides.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether there was deficiency in service as alleged ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief ?
DECISION ON THE POINTS WITH DISCUSSION
6.Point No.(i): The opposite party, Department of Posts (RPLI) rejected the death claim lodged in respect of Policies bearing No.(1)R-AS-EA-296024 and (2) R-AS-EA-317184 under Rule 56(2)(a) of the POLI Rules-2011.
7. In the written version signed and verified by the opposite party No.2, Superintendent of Post offices at para 9 stated that both the Policies in question got lapsed from July,2011 and no premium was paid till 10-07-2011. But the Complainant, while serving the Department of Posts as Sub-Post- master of Bihaguri Sub-Post Office, suddenly on 11-07-2012, accepted entire premiums for 13 months in violation of the departmental Rules for revival of lapsed Policy.
8. Such claim of the opposite party is admitted by the Complainant during cross-examination. He in cross-examination stated : “I was then the sub-Postmaster of Bihaguri Sub-Post Office. Upto 2012, I completed almost two years of service in the department. I underwent 48 day’s training at the Postal Training Centre, Guwahati, during which, training on different aspects inclusive of postal life iinsurance rules were also given. It is a fact that the policies lapsed within three years of commencement of the same. No order for revival was obtained by the policy holder from the higher authority of the department. Now I know that policy can be revived at the Post master’s level within six months in case of lapsed policy, the commencement of which is less than three years. It is a fact that I have accepted revival of the policies even after lapse of six months. Lapsed policy which lapsed within three years of its commencement can be revived within six months of its lapsation”.
9. As per Rule 56(1) of the POLI Rules 2011 “the Policy for which any premium/premia have become due, not paid either on first day of the month for which the premium is due or within the period of grace allowed as per Rule 44, the policy shall become void”.
Revival of such void Policy is governed by Rule 58 of the POLI Rules, 2011.
10. A cursory glance at the Rule 58, we have found that the Sub-Post-master has no authority to revive a void Policy. For revival, an application in prescribed proforma with a certificate from an authorized medical attendant in the prescribed proforma certifying that the life assured is insurable having regard to the insurants health and habits and of evidence to show that there has been no adverse change in his/her personal or family history or his/her occupation and must be submitted before the Postmaster General/Head of
Division. Further Rule 58(2) provides that -“A Policy shall not be considered to have been revived unless an application for that purpose has been made and until the policy has been formally revived in writing”.
11. In the matter of payment and acceptance of lapsed premium at a time, the learned advocate Sri S.K.Biswas advancing his argument submitted that “the Department of Post (OP) uses particular type of computer software throughout the country for customer service activities such as insurance service and mail service etc. The Premium in connection with the aforementioned RPLI policies was paid accordingly as the computer software accepted such payment of premium. The computer software which is used by OP must have designed in such a manner so that it prevents receiving any payment of premium with respect to insurance policy requires revival. The DW-1 also admitted the fact in his cross examination”.
12. Here in the instant case the Complainant failed to adhere to the Rules meant for Revival of void Policy. He, violating the Rules, abruptly deposited the arrear premiums for 13 months and accepted the same in the capacity of a Sub-Postmaster only. Admittedly, the Complainant was not only the Sub-Postmaster who had accepted the lapsed premium of the Policies but at the same time, he is the nominee too. Evidently, Complainant has failed to produce any document as to compliance of Rule 58(2).
13. Non-compliance of Rules mandatory for revival of void Policy by none other than a responsible person of the Department, unequivocally demonstrates his malafide intention for wrongful gain.
For the reasons stated above, we are constrained to hold that what have been argued by the learned counsel, Sri Biswas, is not at all sustainable.
14. We have also gone through the judgment, relied on by the learned advocate Mr. Haque for the opp. party, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dilowar Khan Vs. New India Assurance Company, reported in 2018 NCJ 419 (NC). Though the said judgment was passed in a different context, yet the principle of the judgment can be applied in the present case. Vide aforesaid judgment, the National Commission upheld the decision of the State Commission. The U.P State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground of misleading fact regarding the driver who had driven the vehicle at the relevant time of accident.
15. Taking into view the matter in its entirety, coupled with the discussions made above, the Complainant, in our considered opinion, had failed to establish the Policies in question were valid at the relevant time. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opp. party. Consequently, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16. Further, we have found that the complaint has no leg to stand on another count also. As per complaint, cause of action for the complaint arose on and from 28-01-2016, i.e, the date of rejection of the death claim under the Policies. As per Section 24-A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint is to be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Here the complaint, as per provision, was to be filed on or before 27-01-2018. But the complaint was filed on 29-01-2018 without being assigned any reason as per proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 24-A of the Act.
17.POINT No.(ii): For the decision of the Point No.(i) decided against the Complainant, the latter is not at all entitled to get any relief.
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 25th day of April, 2019.
Dictated and corrected by:
(A.DEVEE) (A. DEVEE)
President President
Dist.Consumer D. R Forum District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Sonitpur,Tezpur Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- ( Smt S. Bora) (Sri P.Das)
Member Member ,
