Karnataka

Kolar

CC/12/2015

Smt. Padmavathamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Supeitend of Post Officers - Opp.Party(s)

S.M. Venkateshappa

11 Nov 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 24/03/2015

Date of Order: 11/11/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 11^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 12 OF 2015

Smt. Padmavathamma,

W/o. Srinivasa Babu. S,

R/at: Velagalaburre Post,

Sututur Hobli,

Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sriyuth.S.M. Venkateshappa, Advocate)         ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Senior Superintend of Post

Officers, Kolar Division,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sriyuth.P.N. Krishna Reddy, Advocate)         …. Opposite Party.

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred in short as “the act”) against opposite party has sought issuance of directions to OP to make payment of matured amount of policy No. R.KI.SK.FA.155266 along with interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of complaint till the date of realization and any other reliefs as the forum to deem fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

 

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, she is the policy holder of the postal life insurance policy bearing No. R.KI.SK.FA.155266 issued on 02.02.2005 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- till maturity date of 02.02.2014 or death of insured whichever is earlier.

 

(b)    It is contended that, she being a policy holder deposited 34 premiums at the rate of Rs.468/- per month.  Due to financial problems she was unable to pay the last two premiums and she requested OP to repay matured amount of said policy by deducting the last two premiums.

 

(c)    Further it is the case of complainant that, for her request OP remained silent hence issued legal notice through her learned counsel on 12.11.2014 which was duly served on OP for which there could be no response.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued with regard to the case on hand, OP has put in appearance through her said learned counsel and submitted written version.

 

(a)    The main contention raised by the OP is that, the insured has not paid premiums regularly, during March-2006 to October-2007.  And that, the policy was revived on the request of the complainant and received premium amount and then onwards insured has not paid premiums regularly.  And that, on account of non-payment of premiums policy came to be lapsed according to Rule-5(5) and 5(37) of the Post Office Life Insurance Policy Rules-2011.

 

(b)    Hence they to contend that, they repudiated the claim of the complainant.  And that, they were not deficient in rendering the services.  So contending dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been sought.

 

04.   The complainant on 16.06.2015 has submitted her affidavit evidence and on behalf of the complainant following documents have been submitted:-

(i) True copy of PLI Bond

(ii) Original copies of bills

(iii) Xerox copy of Legal notice.

(iv) Xerox copy of reply notice.

 

 

05.   On 22.06.2015 the learned counsel appearing for OP has submitted affidavit evidence and relied on report of the postal department.

 

06.   The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted written arguments on 27.07.2015, subsequently on 04.08.2015 the learned counsel appearing for Op has submitted written arguments.

 

07.   Copy of postal report has been relied by the learned counsel for OP.

 

08.   Heard oral arguments of both the learned counsel.

 

09.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP in settling the claim of the complainant?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the policy amount?

 

3.   What order?

 

10.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1:     In the Negative.

 

POINT 2:     In the Negative

 

POINT 3:     As per final order for the  

                   following:-

 

REASONS

POINTS 1 & 2:-

11.   As these points do deserve common course of discussion and to avoid repetition in reasonings, they are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

(a)    It is well settled principle that, facts admitted need not to be proved.  In this case the complainant is the policy holder bearing No.R.KI.SK.FA.155266 and that she paid premiums up to October-2007.  And that totally 34 installments were paid.  Further due to non-payment policy lapsed.  These are the admitted facts.

 

(b)    Rule-5 of Post Office Insurance Rules-2011 is as follows:-

“paid up means a policy for which 36 or more premiums have been paid and also has completed 3 years or more duration from its date of acceptance and the policy holder without intimation discontinues payment of further premia”.

 

(c)    In the instance case the insured/complainant has paid only 34 installments, there after due to non-payment of premium the policy lapsed.  That being so, how it can be said that, there was deficiency in service of OP?

 

(d)    The insured was very irregular in making premium payments of her policy.  Admittedly on request of insured the OP authority accepted the proposal and permitted to pay due premiums for the period of March-2006 to October-2007.  And even then, subsequently she did not pay premiums regularly.  So due to non-payment policy has been lapsed.

 

(e)    As such the insured did not follow the prescribed procedure for revival of the policy.  The complainant has ignored the principles of the Post Office Life Insurance Rules-2011.  And there is no proof submitted regarding revival of the policy. 

 

(f)     We find no grounds to accept the case of the complainant.  And we find no reason why insured did not continue attempts to get the policy revived.  When so we cannot direct the OP to pay the assured sum under the policy.  We hold that the repudiation is bound to prevail as the same is in accordance with Rule-5 of the Post Office Insurance Rules.  As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

POINT 3:-

12.   In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons, this complaint stands dismissed with no costs.

 

02    Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 11^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015)

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                     PRESIDENT