C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/11
COMPLAINANT : Tamal Ch. Ghosh
S/o Lt. Santosh Kr. Ghosh
Vill. Kuthirpara,
P.O. Arpara, P.S. Nakashipara,
Dist. Nadia, PIN - 741126
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nadia North Division,
P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
PIN - 741101
2) The Branch Post Master,
Madandanga Branch Post Office,
Via – Debagram S.O.
Dist. Nadia, PIN - 741137
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL, MEMBER
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 31st October, 2013
: J U D G M E N T :
The instant case has been instituted by one Sri Tamal Chandra Ghosh, S/o Late Santosh Kumar Ghosh, a resident of Kuthirpara, P.S. Nakashipara, P.O. Arpara, Dist. Nadia against the opposite parties i.e., the Superintendent of Post Office, Nadia North Region and the Branch Post Master, Madandanga Branch Post Office, Nadia alleging deficiency in service.
Shorn off the unnecessary details, the material facts of the present case are: that the complainant obtained a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy bearing No. R-WB-CA-EA-6261 for Rs. 60,000/- (Sixty thousand) of sum assured on 27.12.2001. The term of the policy was EA.40 with a monthly premium of Rs. 105/- be deposited at Madandanga Branch Post Office. He deposited premium for the month of January 2002 and February 2002 within stipulated time. But he failed to deposit premium for the month of March 2002 within time. He deposited the premium for the month of March, 2002 on 16.10.2002 at Madandanga Post office as per the advice of the then Post Master of the said Branch Post Office. Subsequently, the complainant deposited all premiums up to the month of September, 2012 with interest whenever required. Somehow he came to know that his policy became void due to non-payment of the premium within stipulated time. In order to revive his lapsed policy he approached the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nadia North Region and as per his advice he submitted a prayer for revival of the aforementioned void policy on 12.12.2012. After receiving that prayer the Superintendent of Post offices asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 7,659/- within 28.02.2013 or Rs. 7,660/- within 31.03.2013 along with a medical fitness certificate for revival of said void policy. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Superintendent of the Post Offices the complainant urged him either revive his policy without interest or refund the deposited premiums along with interest. But the Superintendent of Post Offices expressed his inability as because it was not admissible as per the then existing Departmental Rules. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left no alternative a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the complainant in this Forum praying for reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
On notice, opposite parties entered appearance and contested the case by filing joint-written version challenging, inter alia, the very maintainability of the case. The opposite parties Post offices have got to say the proceeding is misconceived, malafide, groundless and unsustainable in law. On such ground the opposite parties pray straightway dismissal of the case.
Going by the factual matrix and the gamut of controversy which has surfaced in the present case, the ultimate question, answer to which will decide the fate of the present complaint is as to whether the opposite parties Post offices have committed any deficiency in service by claiming interest of Rs. 7,659/- for revival of the said void policy or by declining to refund the deposited premiums. The answer to the above would require the consideration of the following aspects:-
- Whether the complainant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy?
- Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service in claiming interest of Rs. 7659/- for revival of the lapsed policy or in dealing to refund of the deposited premiums.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, if so, to what extent?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
At the very outset, let us note that in order to substantiate their respective cases the parties did not prefer adducing any verbal evidence despite opportunity given to them. They relied upon documentary evidences only. Status of the complainant as ‘consumer’ is nowhere challenged by the opposite parties. Documents on record indicate beyond doubt that he happens to be a ‘consumer’ as per meaning of the term laid down under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Other question relates to the point of limitation. To get relief under Consumer Protection Act, one is to bring one’s petition of complaint within a period of 2 (two) years from the date of ‘cause of action’ has arisen. On this point too the present petitioner is on the right side of the matter.
Now we switch over to the pivotal question involved in the present case whether the opposite parties Bank were negligent / deficient in service in claiming the interest of Rs. 7659/- for revival of this lapsed policy or not refunding the deposited premium to the complainant. The complainant contends that it is a glaring example of utter deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties Post offices never informed him (complainant) that his policy became void for March 2002. As per the advice of the Post Master of Madandanga Branch Post office he deposited the unpaid premium along with interest on 16.10.2002 and consequently he deposited monthly premium up to the month of September, 2012 along with interest whenever required. As soon as he came to know that the aforesaid policy became void he approached the Superintendent of Post offices, Nadia North Region for its revival. But the Superintendent of Post Offices claimed interest of Rs. 7659/- from him for revival of the said lapsed policy though he had already deposited all premiums and thus acted in arbitrary and malafide manner causing harm to him and was, therefore, guilty of deficiency in service. Under the circumstances, he is entitled to get compensation for mental harassment and costs of the proceeding in addition to revival of his policy without any interest.
In rebuttal, ld. Advocate appearing for the opposite parties Post offices humbly submits that the complainant deposited premium for the month of January, 2002 and February 2002 within due date. But he deposited the premium for the month of March, 2002 on 16.10.2002 at Madandanga Post office, after a period of more than six months in gross violation of Rule 44 of POIF 2011 and the corollary of that his policy became void since March, 2002. In the event of a policy holder of a lapsed policy desiring automatic reinstatement of his / her policy within a period not later than 6 months or a period not later than 12 months from the date of first unpaid premium had become due in respect of such policies that have not completed 3 years or in respect of policies that have completed 3 years from the date of acceptance. The complainant is well aware of this as this matter is neatly printed at the back of the policy document. Considering this the said policy of the complainant being less than 3 years stands void and automatic reinstatement is not possible and it needs to be revived as per rule. Rule 58(2) of POIF 2011 states 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.
Ld. Advocate representing the opposite parties Post offices further submits that admittedly the complainant / insurant was well aware of lapse of his policy and applied for revival in prescribed proforma on 12.12.2012. Accordingly, his policy was treated void from March, 2002 and interest calculated from March, 2002. The premium deposited by him irregularly along with fine form February 2013 was subsequently excluded from the total amount. Letter for revival of his policy was revived on 24 January, 2013. Surprisingly, now the complainant / insurant wants his policy be revived without interest or return of deposited premiums along with interest which is not permissible as per the existing Departmental rules.
As regards the advice of the Post Master Madandanga Branch Post office ld. Advocate appearing for the opposite parties Post offices submits that the Post Master of the said Branch Post office never advised the complainant to deposit the alleged premiums. The complainant used to deposit the monthly premiums entirely on his own volition despite knowing that his policy was in lapsed condition. In this connection ld. Advocate for the opposite parties Post offices has invited our attention to the Rule 58 (3) POIF 2011, wherein it is stated, “Any payments purporting to be premium/primia payments made after a policy has become void in terms of Rule 56(1) …………… are held in suspense shall be refunded to the policy-holder, his/her nominee or his / her legal heir as the case may be, as and when applied for, with interest as prescribed by the Director General of Post Offices.” The above mentioned Rule affirms that the opposite parties Post offices have acted bonafide without fraud and deception and within the bounds of their authority. So, the complainant cannot throw the blame on the opposite parties Post offices in absence of cogent and reliable evidence supporting his contention.
We have given our anxious thought, to the arguments advanced by the ld. Advocate for both parties and also to the facts of the case and evidence on record.
In view of the solid and unflappable evidence of opposite parties Post Offices the case of the complainant pales into insignificance. The opposite parties have firmly established their case with cogent and reliable evidence. Under the circumstances, the complainant has no bone to pluck with the opposite parties.
At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that it has been long recognized rule, ‘Caveat emptor qui ignorare non debuit quod jns alieunum emit’ – let a purchaser who ought not to be ignorant of the amount and nature of the interest which he is about to buy, exercise proper caution. It needs to be mentioned here that the conspectus of the aforementioned facts shows that the entire problem cropped up due to the wilful ignorance and carelessness of the complainant. At the time of obtaining the aforesaid policy the complainant ought to be well aware of the ‘terms and conditions’ of the said Rural Life Insurance Policy. Moreover, the complainant had failed to maintain financial discipline and committed defaults toward payment of monthly premium within stipulated time. Despite that he in flat contradiction filed this case and prayed reliefs. But the legal maxim is “Nemo exproprio dolo cousquitur actionem” – Nobody can be rewarded for his own faults. None acquires a right of action for his own wrong. Therefore, the complainant in the circumstances of the present case cannot claim any compensation and in view of his default in payment of premium regularly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. [Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Principal V.R. College III (2001) CPJ 207 (AP) 2002 1 CPR 223 (AP)]
In view of the above observations, we feel that the present petition of complaint is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and the petition is totally devoid of merit, frivolous and bogus one. As such, the same is liable to be dismissed with punitive cost. Accordingly, it is
Ordered,
That the present petition of complaint is dismissed with punitive cost of
Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
The complainant is accordingly directed to deposit the costs by way of Demand Draft for the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in the name of ‘State Consumer Welfare Fund’ within a period of four weeks from today.
In case, costs are not deposited within the prescribed period, then the complainant shall be liable to pay interest 9% p.a. till realization.
