Karnataka

Kolar

CC/3/2017

Sri.G.VinodKumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.T.Subramanya & Associates

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 06/01/2017

Date of Order: 05/09/2017

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

 

Dated: 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 03 OF 2017

1) Sri.G.Vinodkumar,

S/o. late Sri. C.K. Gopal Rao,

Aged About 45 Years,

 

2) Master. V.Udhith Sairam,

S/o. Sri.G.Vonodkumar,

Aged About 13 Years,

 

3) Master. V.Nidish Sairam,

S/o. Sri.G.Vinodkumar,

Aged About 8 Years,

 

Since Complainant Nos. 2 & 3 are minors

rep. by their Father & Natural Guardian

Sri.G.Vinodkumar.

 

Complainant Nos. 1 to 3 are R/at:

“Sri Rama Nilaya, Behind BEO Office,

Doddapet, Kolar.                                          ….  COMPLAINANTS.

(Complainant Nos.1 to 3 are represented

by Sriyuth. Mohamed Usmon, Advocate)

- V/s -

1) Union Of India, Rep. by its Chief Secretary,

Department of Posts & Telegraphs,

Postal Insurance, New-Delhi.

 

2) The Chief Post Master General,

Postal Life Insurance, South Karnataka Region,

2^nd Floor, GPO Building, Bangalore-560 001.

 

3) The Post Master (General), (R.P.L.I.),

Rural Postal Life Insurance Office, Kolar.

 

(OP Nos.1 to 3 are represented by

Sriyuth. P.N. Krishna Reddy, Advocate)            …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainants have filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP Nos.1 to 3 praying to direct the OP Nos.1 to 3 to release the assured sums of Rs.2,00,000/- under Policy bearing No. KT 531916-CS in Policy Type-EA, an assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under Policy bearing No. KT 531909-CS in Policy Type-EA and an assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under policy bearing No. KT 538261-CS in policy Type-EA and to award suitable compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainants.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    The complainant Nos.1 to 3 submits that, Smt. J.R. Kusuma, wife of complainant No.1, while she was working as Assistant Teacher at Government High School of M. Nulla Guttapalli, Chelur Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chickaballapura District, she obtained three following policies from the OP Postal Life Insurance and used to make payment of premiums regularly to the OP No.3. 

	FIRST POLICY	SECOND POLICY	THIRD POLICY
Policy Number	KT 531916-CS	KT 531909-CS	KT 538261-CS
Policy Type	EA	EA	EA
Sum Assured	Rs.2,00,000/-	Rs.2,00,000/-	Rs.3,00,000/-
Maturity Term	55 Years	58 Years	60 Years
Premium Rate	Rs.1030/-	Rs.870/-	Rs.1,185/-
Premium to be paid at	Chelur SO	Chikkaballapur HO	Kolar HO

 

On 24.03.2012 deceased Smt. J.R. Kusuma, wife of complainant No.1 sent proposal for taking above first and second Postal Life Insurance policies amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- each.  The same was accepted by the OPs through acceptance letter dated: 23.04.2012.  Later on original policy bonds were issued towards both polices to the address of wife of the complainant No.1. 

 

(b)    Further, the complainants submission is that, deceased Smt. J.R. Kusuma, wife of complainant No.1 was also opted for third policy vide proposal letter dated: 31.03.2012 and the same was also accepted with effect from 16.05.2012.  Later on, original policy bond was also sent to the address of wife of the complainant No.1.  The deceased Smt. J.R. Kusuma, the life assured opted to make the payment of premium at Chelur Sub-Post Office, Chickballapur Head Office and Kolar Head Office, his wife choose to make the deposits of all the three premiums at Kolar Head Post Office.  The complainant has produced the pass books pertaining to the payments made towards premiums of three polices.  While taking the aforesaid three polices complainant No.1’s wife Late Smt. J.R. Kusuma had nominated complainant No.1 as a nominee and the same was also entered in all the three insurance bonds.

 

(c)    The complainants further submitted that, on 14.02.2014 at around 4.45 PM wife of complainant No.1 Smt. J.R. Kusuma complained about chest pain.  One Dr.C.Mohan attended her immediately and advised to take her to R.L. Jalappa Research Hospital.  As complainant No.1 was out of station she was shifted immediately through 108 ambulance to R.L. Jalappa Research Hospital.  Where Dr.P.Srinivasamurthy after attending the case declared as dead at casualty medical ward.  Thereafter wife of complainant No.1 Smt. J.R. Kusuma was cremated at Khadripuram burial ground.  As the complainant No.1 was not aware of the procedures to claim on 10.06.2014 he wrote letter to OP No.2 requesting to guide him to get the policy amount, but OP No.2 failed to give any response.  Later in the month of July-2014 complainant No.1 sent all the three original policies to OP No.3 requesting for settlement of the claim, but to the shock OP No.2 sent claim rejection letter mentioning that, all the three policies held by late Smt. J.R. Kusuma was lapsed Under Rule 56.  Smt. J.R. Kusuma had paid the premiums in all the three policies and the last payment was made on 29.10.2013 and she expired on 14.02.2014 without any default in payment on her part.  Sometimes Smt. J.R. Kusuma paid the premiums after two months and after three months and the same was accepted by the OP No.3 with some fine amount.  So the premium amount if any due to pay was again 03 months, due before her death.  So the policies cannot be treated as lapsed.  The delay of 2 to 3 months in making payment of premiums were seen from the entries made in the payment deposit book.  At any point of time she was not warned by OP No.3 regarding delay in making payment of premiums.  When once the premiums were accepted with fine amount from the insured, Ops cannot take shelter Under Rule 56 of the Postal Life Insurance Rules.  The act of rejection of all the three policies amounts to deficiency in service. 

 

(d)    Complainants further submission is that, constrained by the act of the Ops complainant issued legal notice dated: 18.08.2015 to OP Nos.1 to 3 by asking them to verify the claim papers again and to settle the insurance amount.  But OP Nos.1 to 3 took same contention.  Hence this complaint. 

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum, the learned counsel for OP Nos.1 to 3 appeared and filed its version by resisting the claim of the complainants in toto:-

 

(a)    The brief facts of the version filed by the learned counsel appearing for OP Nos.1 to 3 is that, it is true that, the complainant’s wife Smt.J.R. Kusuma is the holder of three postal life insurance policies bearing No.KT531916-CS for Rs.2,00,000/- sum assured and the premium was Rs.1,030/- per month Maturity term is 55 years, another policy bearing No.KT531909-CS for Rs.2,00,000/- sum assured and the premium was 870/- per month, maturity term is 58 years and another policy bearing No. KT 538261-CS for Rs.3,00,000/- sum assured and the premium was Rs.1,185/- per month, maturity term is 60 years and also the proposal was accepted and the policies were issued to the insured.  It is also admitted by these Ops that, the receipt of premium from the date of first premium and the last premium i.e., on 29.10.2013 and it is also admitted that, the name of 1^st complainant’s name is entered as nominee of the insured.  Further it is also admitted by these Ops that, Smt. J.R. Kusuma expired on 14.02.2014.

 

(b)    Further OP Nos.1 to 3 submitted that, complainant No.1 has made death claim of above mentioned three policies and the Post Master General, South Karnataka Region, Bangalore, after examining, rejected the claim as the polices are lapsed as per rule 56 of Indian Postal Life Insurance Rules Vide No.PLI/Death Claim/TC No.415/416/418 dated and Bangalore-560 001, the 19.01.2015 as such the contention of the complainant that, the rejection letter bears no date is not correct and the letter date is 19.01.2015.  The terms and conditions of the polices are clearly printed on the bonds issued to the insured.  Hence the allegations made by the complainant that, the OP has not brought to her notice about the limitation of time within which the premium should be paid and consequences of these polices if not paid are hereby denied as false. 

(c)    Further Ops submission is that, the insured has not paid premium till her death and she expired on 14.02.2014 and the last premium paid is on 29.10.2013 as such the policy was lapsed as the insured expired within 02 years from the date of acceptance of the policy.  The commencement of risk is from 16.05.2012 and 31.03.2012 and the insured expired on 14.02.2014, hence the insured expired within 24 months from the date of commencement of risk, the premium is paid up to October-2013, the grace period is allowed up to 30.11.2014 and remission period is allowed only 60 days i.e., up to 29.01.2014.  The insured should have paid the premium on or before 29.01.2014, hence the polices are lapsed on 30.01.2014 under 56(1) 9iii) of the Post Office Life Insurance Rules -2011 and there is a provision to re-instate the policy as per rule 56(3) of the post office Life Insurance Rules -2011.  The insured has failed to avail the lapsed polices re-instated during her life time, hence the polices become lapsed policies and the claim of complainant was rejected. 

(d)    Further contention of the Ops is that, the legal notice dated: 18.08.2015 issued by the complainant was suitable replied vide PLI/DC/KT-531916-CS KT-531908-CS, KT 538261-CS dated: 24.08.2015 and the complainant was failed to note the date of the reply notice and stated as reply notice date: “NIL” is false and it is dated: 24.08.2015.  There is no cause of action to file the complaint and as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

04.   On 10.04.2017 the learned counsel appearing for complainants has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  On 05.06.2017 the learned counsel appearing for OP Nos.1 to 3 has filed affidavit evidence of one Sri. B.S.Umesh, S/o. B.Siddalingappa Setty, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kolar Division, Kolar, on behalf of OP Nos.1 to 3. 

 

05.   On 05.06.2017 the learned counsel appearing for complainants has filed written arguments along with Memo and citations.  On 12.06.2017 the learned counsel appearing for complainants has filed additional written arguments.  On 10.07.2017 the learned counsel appearing for Ops has filed written arguments.  After hearing the oral arguments advanced by both the parties case is posted for orders.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for consideration in the above case are:-

(A)  Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service against the OPs?

(B) Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought for ?

(C)  What order?

 

07.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):      In the Affirmative.

 

POINT (C):               As per final order for

the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

 

08.   On perusal of the pleadings along with affidavit evidence and documents produced by both the parties, it reveals that, the wife of the complainant No.1 deceased Smt. J.R. Kusuma in her lifetime had obtained three Postal Life Insurance Polices bearing No. KT 531916-CS for an assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, KT 531909-CS for an assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, and KT 538261-CS for an assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Ops.

 

09.   Further it is also an admitted fact that, in respect of the above first and second policies the wife of complainant No.1 Late Smt. J.R. Kusuma had sent the proposal letter to the OPs on 24.03.2012 and the same was accepted by the Ops on 31.03.2012 and in respect of third policy Smt. J.R. Kusuma, the wife of complainant No.1 had sent the proposal letter to the Ops on 31.03.2012 and that was also accepted by the Ops with effect from 16.05.2012.  The policy bonds in respect of the above said three policies were also marked as Document Nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively. 

 

10.   Further it is also an admitted fact that, the life insured Smt. J.R. Kusuma, wife of complainant No.1 had died due to massive heart attack on 14.02.2014.  Thereafter the 1^st complainant being a nominee of the above said policies had approached the Ops claiming amounts in respect of above three policies.  But the Ops have rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that, “policy was lapsed Under Rule 56”.  The contention of the complainant is that, late Smt. J.R. Kusuma had paid the premium amounts in all the above three policies from April-2012 to 29.10.2013.  She had paid the premium for two months at a time and three months at a time by making payment of late payment charges.  And the OP has accepted the same.  The Ops have not brought to the notice of Smt. Late J.R. Kusuma, wife of complainant No.1, about the limitation of time for making payment of premium within or which the premium should be paid.  Further the complainant No.1 contended that, the OP had accepted the premiums with fine amount from the life assured and in the later date they cannot take shelter under Rule 56 contending that, the payment was not make within the time stipulated or within the grace period.  Hence the rejection of claim in respect of all the above three policies is bad. 

 

11.   Admittedly the life assured was paying premium amount for 2 to 3 months once and the OPs have received the premium amount from the life assured by collecting fine amount without any objection.  Only after the death of the life assured the Ops have intended to defeat, repudiate the claim of the complainant No.1.  The repudiation now made by the OPs is totally irrational and unsustainable.  Since the OPs have received the premium amount after lapse of 02 to 03 months along with fine amount now the OPs cannot repudiate the claim made by the complainant No.1 just because the life assured has not paid the premium amount within period of time.  When the Ops have received the premium amount on a monthly basis even after lapse of grace period and continued the policies, there is no rational behind the Ops to repudiate the claim of the complainant in not accepting the premium after the life time of the complainant.

 

12.   Further the Ops have also not informed the life assured about the lapse of policies in question and also not issued any demand notice to the life assured seeking payment of the premium amount.  Hence the policy is deemed to be in force at the time of death of the life assured Smt. J.R. Kusuma.  Hence the complainant No.1 being a nominee as well as the legal heir of the life assured is eligible for the sum assured.  Hence we hold that, the repudiation made by the OPs in respect of the above three policies amounts to deficiency in service and accordingly we hold Point (A) & (B) in the Affirmative.

 

POINT (C):-

13.   In view of the above discussions, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed-in-part with costs of Rs.5,000/- against the OPs. 

 

02.   The OPs are hereby directed to settle the sum assured in respect of all the three Postal Life Insurance Policy bearing Nos. KT 531916-CS, KT 531909-CS and KT 538261-CS to the complainant No.1 by deducting the due premium amount in respect of all the above 03 policies along with fine.  The Ops are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the sum assured in respect of all the above three policies from the respective date of repudiation made by the Ops till realization.

 

03.   The Ops are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant No.1 towards mental agony.

 

04.   The Ops are further directed to comply the above said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

05.   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 05^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                            PRESIDENT