Kerala

Idukki

CC/111/2021

Suma John - Complainant(s)

Versus

The postmaster - Opp.Party(s)

28 Apr 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 10.8.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of April, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.111/2021

Between

Complainant : Suma John Kallinkal,

Myladoor House,

Kuthukuzhi.

Now residing at

Myladoor House,

Velliyamattom P.O., Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: Sibi Thomas)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Post Master,

Perumbavoor Head Post Office,

Ernakulam District.

2. The Manager,

Central Processing Centre (RPLI),

Perumbavoor.

O/o. The Postmaster,

Perumbavoor H.P.O. – 683 542.

3. Post Master General,

Kerala Circle,

Thiruvananthapuram.

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This complaint is filed under Section 34(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a resident of Thodupuzha. 1^st opposite party is Post Master of Perumbavoor Head Post Office, Ernakulam District. 2^nd opposite party is Manager of Central Processing Centre (RPLI), Perumbavoor and 3^rd opposite party is Post Master (cont....2)

- 2 -

General of Kerala Circle. Complainant had taken a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy from opposite parties for which premium was to paid in monthly instalments of Rs.481/-. Policy had commenced from 31.3.2011 onwards. For about 3 years, employees of opposite parties working in Kozhippally Post Office, used to collect premium payable from complainant. Thereafter payment was in arrears since nobody came to collect premium. After about one year, when complainant had approached the Post Master of Kothamangalam Post Office, she was informed that premium can be accepted only upon orders of higher authorities. Thereafter, complainant had not paid any premium. Policy had matured on 31.3.2020. On 22.4.2020, complainant had filed application for getting back the amount paid towards policy premium. Her application was rejected for the reason that she had not paid premium for 36 months. According to complainant, she was not informed that the amount paid will be forfeited in case payment is less than 36 monthly installments. Such conditions incorporated in policy are void also. Complainant claims that she is entitled to get back the amount paid towards 34 instalments of premium. Non-payment of the same amounts to unfair trade practice. Complainant hence seeks repayment of Rs.16354/-, being the total premium paid by her for 34 instalments with 10% interest. She prays for compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony suffered due to deficiency in service and Rs.3000/- towards litigation cost.

 

2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices in Aluva Division, had, upon authorization by opposite parties 1 to 3, filed written version on their behalf. Contentions addressed in written version are briefly narrated here under :

 

Opposite parties submit that complainant was holder of RPLI from R-KL-EA-483331 with sum assured of Rs.50,000/-. Monthly premium payable was Rs.481/- + tax. Date of commencement of policy was 31.3.2011 and date of maturity was 31.3.2020. Complainant had submitted RPLI policy for maturity claim along with policy bond, premium receipt book and other connected documents on 22.4.2020 at Central Processing Centre, Perumbavoor Head Post Office. Upon verification, it was found that premium was paid only for 34 months. As per Rule 56 (2) of Post Office Life Insurance Rules – 2011, maturity claims can be processed only for those policies where premium amount has been paid for at least 36 months from the date of acceptance. This rule is incorporated in the policy bond and premium receipt book also. This was intimated to the complainant as per letter dated 12.5.2020 sent by the Manager of Central Processing Centre, Perumbavoor. It is further submitted that instalments of RPLI premium can be paid at any post office in India. Monthly premium can be paid on any date in a particular month. Policy held by the complainant had lapsed since premium was paid only for 34 months. Revival of lapsed policy could have been done before maturity date of policy by (cont.....3)

• 3 -

paying the pending monthly instalments with 12% interest, provided insurant produces health certificate from prescribed medical authority. Policy was not revived. Since complainant had not paid required number of instalments, it had become void and therefore she is not entitled for any benefits under the scheme. Premia paid stands forfeited. Therefore complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

 

3. After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence, after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides for taking steps. Complainant has not adduced any oral evidence. 2 documents , a covering letter and policy were marked on the side of complainant as Ext.P1 series, 2 in numbers. Copies of these documents were sought to be marked by opposite parties 1 to 3 also, however, those copies were not admitted, since originals were already admitted from the side of complainant. Apart from this, opposite parties have also sought for marking copy of order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – 1, Chittoor, in CC No.66/2016. It is a decision rendered by another Commission and not a precedent to be followed, Hence same was not admitted. Both sides were heard. Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether complainant is entitled to get back the amount paid by her towards 34 instalments of premium for the said policy subscribed by her ?

2) Whether non-payment amounts to deficiency in service ?

3) Reliefs and Costs ?

 

4. Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

It is admitted that complainant was holder of RPLI Policy of opposite parties for which sum assured was Rs.50000/-. It is also admitted that monthly premium payable was Rs.481/- + tax. Date of commencement of policy was 31.3.2011 and date of maturity was 31.3.2020. Both sides admit that 34 months’ instalments were paid towards the premium due. The only question is whether complainant is entitled to get back the amount paid by her towards policy premia even after the policy had lapsed. Opposite parties relied upon Rule 56(2) (a) of Post Office Life Insurance Rule 2011 to justify their stand that the premia paid will be forfeited except in case coming under clause (i) of (v) of the rule. It appears that the provision has not been correctly interpreted by the opposite parties. The policy, as per Rule 56(2) (a), shall become void where there is no payment of 36 months of premium from the date of acceptance and thereafter within the period of grace and if death of the insurer take place at any time after the policy become void, all claims to any benefit in virtue thereof shall cease and all money that have been paid in consequence thereof shall be forfeited. Thus forfeiture will come into effect only if the policy become void and the insurer dies at any time after the policy has become (cont....4)

• 4 -

void. Use of the expression/word ‘and’ which is a conjunctive clause makes this amply clear. Thus two conditions non payment and death of insurant after policy becoming void are necessary for forfeiture of premia. Therefore, we are of the view that the amount paid towards 34 premium instalments by the complainant is to be refunded to her. Rejection of her application was not correct. Non-payment of the same despite entitlement would certainly amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we find that complainant is entitled to get back Rs.16354/- paid by her towards 34 monthly instalments of premium of the policy which had become void. She is entitled for 10% interest per annum for the said amount from the date of filing of this complaint, i.e., 10.8.2021, till the date of payment / realisation. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5. Point No.3 :

 

Complainant has prayed for an award of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and Rs.3000/- for litigation expenses. Considering the circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite parties should pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- towards litigation costs. Compensation awarded (Rs.2000/-) shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. Opposite parties shall comply with this order within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the same.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 28^th day of April, 2022

 

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

(cont....5)

• 5 -

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 series - a covering letter and policy.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR