BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday the 22nd day of March, 2011
C.C.No 87/10
Between:
M. Maheswaraiah, S/o. Sankaraiah,
H.No.11/43, Main Road, Atmakur, Kurnool District.
.…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Head Post Office, Kurnool.
2. The Branch Post Master, Post Office,
Nallakalva Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri A.Siva Ramaiah, Advocate for complainant, and Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member)
C.C. No. 87/10
1. This case is filed by the complainant under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to issue the policy in favour of the complainant or to refund of deposited amount with interest at 24% P.A., to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of the complaint.
2. Briefly the complainant case is that he applied for Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy (R.P.L.I) on 13-03-2009 for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- by paying advance premium of Rs.15,437/- and submitted proposal form with relevant documents to the Branch Post Master, Nallakalva Village. The receipt No of the advance premium is 25. While the complainant was awaiting for the policy copy, 9 months after the proposal, he received an intimation, intimating him to take back the premium amount deducting the medical and other fees, rejecting the proposal itself. The reason for the rejection of the policy was that the complainant crossed 45 years age, and not entitled to take policy for more than one lakh as he had already insured for one lakh under policy No.Ex.136761. The complainant submitted that he is qualified to take the second policy as per the broacher issued by Opposite Parties, where in para-2, the age limit is prescribed as 19 years to 55 years, and in para-10, the limit for insured amount in fifty thousands to three lakhs. Having received such reply after 9months the complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite parties on 17-02-2009. The opposite parties replied on 11-01-2010 with false allegations to cover their inaction. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant filed this case before the Forum claiming appropriate reliefs under different heads.
3. The complainant filed his Sworn Affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to A4 in support of his case.
4. In pursuance of the notice of the forum, the opposite party No. 1 filed counter denying his liability to the complainant’s claim. The opposite party No.2 filed a memo adopting the counter of opposite party No.1. As per the counter the opposite parties acknowledged that the complainant applied for RPLI policy on 13-03-2009 with opposite party No.2 for Rs.2,00,000/- but not Rs.1,00,000/- by paying Rs.15,437/- as advance premium. The opposite party No.2 disagreed that he had verified the documents produced by the complainants and promised that the policy would be delivered to him. The allegation that he rejected the proposal on the ground that the proposar crossed 45 years age and cannot take more than one lakh policy as he has policy already for Rs.1,00,000/- with policy No.EA136791 and advised the complainant to take back premium amount after deducting the medical fee etc is false. The complainant also submitted a Broacher containing terms and conditions of RPLI policy where in para-2 the age limit is prescribed as 19 years to 55 years and in para-10 the limit for insured amount is Rs.50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- and pleaded that he is very much qualified to obtain RPLI policy for further Rs.1,00,000/-, but his proposal was rejected on untenable grounds. In this contest the opposite party stated that the complainant is guilty of suppression of the material facts while filling the complaint. As per the notification dated 15-03-1995, issued by Director, Postal Life Insurance, Government of India, the maximum age limit of a person for taking a RPLI policy is 45 years and the maximum limit for insured amount is Rs.2,00,000/-. And it is not mandatory to the complainant to remit advance premium, but he voluntary remitted Rs.15,437/- as advance premium amount even before the acceptance of Rs.2,00,000/- policy. Opposite party finally submitted that since the proposal is against rules, it was not accepted and the advance premium was ordered for refund. The complainant accepted the refund amount with out any protest. Therefore the action of opposite parties strictly as per rules of RPLI policies and there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Hence it is prayed for the dismissed of the case with cost.
5. Opposite parties filed documents marked as Ex.B1 along with sworn affidavit to prove his case.
6. Both parties filed written arguments and oral arguments.
7. Hence the points for considerations:
(a) Whether the complainant made out any case to prove deficiency on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the payment of compensation.
- If yes, how much compensation?
8. Points 1 & 2:- The contention of the complainant is that he paid advance premium and applied for RPLI policy for Rs.1,00,000/- on 13-03-2009. Ex.A1 is the receipt for advance premium of Rs.15,437/- paid to opposite parties. The complainant had already a policy for Rs.1,00,000/- with policy No.136791 and crossed 45 years age. The complainant is eligible for a second policy as per the terms and conditions mentioned in broacher. Ex.A4 copy of broacher circulated by Postal Department, Government of India, RPLI – Corrected up to 03/2008. The opposite party No.2 forwarded the proposal to opposite party No.1 for the issue of policy. But nine months after the complainant received a letter form opposite party No.1 stating that the proposal is rejected as per Ex.B1 and the advance premium was ordered in Ex.A3 for refund after deducting the medical fees etc. The contention of opposite parties is that since the complainant crossed 45 years and already possessing a policy for Rs.1,00,000/-, the second policy cannot issued to him as per the rules in Ex.B1. In Ex.A3 the advance premium was ordered for refund. But no receipt was filed by opposite parties that the refund of advance premium of Rs.15,437/- was made to the complainant. From what is stated above the Forum holds that the opposite parties declining the issue of second policy is acceptable and at the same time the refund of advance premium to the complainant by the opposite parties is allowed.
9. Point No.3:- The complainant claim of Rs.15,437/- which was paid to opposite parties as advance premium is acceptable. The opposite parties took nine months to give reply after receiving advance premium. Further the refund was not made though it was ordered and the complainant was compelled to approach the Forum for settlement of his case. Hence he is entitled compensation for mental agony.
10. In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.15,437/-with 9% interest from 13-03-2009, till the date of its realization, Rs.1,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- as the cost of the case.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 22nd day of March, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainants : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainants:-
Ex.A1 Receipt bearing No.25 dated 13-03-2009 for Rs.15,437/-.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 17-12-2009 along with postal receipt.
Ex.A3 Reply notice of opposite party No.1, dated 11-01-2010.
Ex.A4 A Broacher of postal department.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of notification dated 15-03-1995 issued by the Directorate of Postal Life Insurance, Department of posts, Ministry of Communications, Government of India.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
