This is a discussion on The Director of Insurance Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD F.A.No.471 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.217 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM SRIKAKULAM Between ...
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD
F.A.No.471 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.217 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM SRIKAKULAM
Malyala Venkata Ramanamurthy,
S/o late Madhava Rao,
Retd. Superintendent, College of Nursing
R/o D.No.49-46-4/34, Akkayyapalem,
A N D
1. The Director of Insurance
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Director,
District Insurance Office,
3. The Medical Officer,
Primary Health Center,
Counsel for the Appellant Ms S.Sridevi
Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 Served
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 Sri M.S.Kumar
QUORUM: SRI K.SATYANAND, PRESIDING MEMBER
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
TUESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant. The District Forum dismissed his complaint in C.D.No.217 of 2004 on the grounds that the appellant failed to submit any proposal for issue of insurance policy under APGLIC Scheme.
The factual matrix as stated in the complaint is that the appellant joined in government service as UDC in the office of the respondent no.3 and worked there till February 2001. Subsequently he was transferred to the College of Nursing, Visakhapatnam on promotion as Superintendent and having put up the rest of his service there the appellant was retired at Visakhapatnam. Insurance policy under APGLIC scheme is compulsory for government servants and during the year 1987-88 the appellant obtained insurance policy, GPF NO.24853-Medical whereby Rs.64/- was deducted every month from his salary by the drawing and disbursing officer, the respondent no.3 remitted to the respondents no.1 and 2. The appellant was not given any policy bond or policy number, the respondent no.3 deducted the premium from the salary of the appellant and sent the same to the respondents no.1 and 2. Therefore there was implied tripartite agreement entered among the appellant, respondent no.3 and respondents no.1 and 2. The respondents’ no.1 and 2 had not raised any objection when the premium was credited to the account of the respondents’ no.1 and 2. The appellant was under the impression that after his retirement, he would receive the amount under the insurance policy along with bonus.
On 30.9.2002 the appellant was retired from the service and offered for refund of the maturity amount along with bonus. The respondent no.2 returned his proposal which was represented on 19.6.2004. The respondent no.2 in the second instance assured the appellant that they will arrange the payment of the amount to the appellant. However, the proposal was returned again on 26.7.2004. The appellant got issued notice to the respondents no.1 and 2 and thereafter on 30.10.2004 to the respondent no.3. The respondents no.1 and 2 have to pay the maturity amount of Rs.60,000/-.
The respondent no.2 filed counter which was adopted by the respondent no.1. It was contended that the policy number as stated by the appellant in his complaint was pertaining to G.Satyam S/o Narayana of Vizianagaram. It is a duty of the appellant and his drawing officer to send proposal and deduct the premiums and also remit the same to the credit of the appellant every month. The appellant and his employer have not obtained any policy from the respondents no.1 and 2. The amount of Rs.9447/- kept in suspense account maintained by the respondent no.2 was received from the office of the respondent no.3. The respondent no2 is ready to pay the said amount to the appellant subject to submission of detailed recovery particulars along with Form No.I and receipt. It was pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.
The respondent no.3 contended that on verification of their office records, it was found that during service of the appellant with them, an amount of RS.39/- was deducted every month towards APGLIC Policy bearing NO.522988 since the year 1987-88 and after the basic pay of the policy was increased, the monthly premium was also increased to Rs.64/-. The appellant himself prepared salary acquaintance and pay bills and he made an entry giving policy no.522988 without any policy bond. He subscribed the amount without making any correspondent even though the policy bond was not received by him. The appellant never represented to the respondent no.3 he had not received the APGLIC policy bond.
The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to maturity value of Rs.60,000/- from the respondents no.1 and 2?
2. To what relief?
POINT NO.1: The undisputed facts are that the appellant joined the government service in the capacity of UDC in primary health centre, Guttavalli, Srikakulam in the office of the respondent no.3 where he worked till the month of February 2001. Thereafter he was transferred to College of Nursing, Visakhapatnam and promoted as Superintendent in which capacity he was retired from service there. It is also not in dispute that an amount of RS.39/- per month was deducted in the initial stage of his service and on enhancement of his basic pay the monthly premium was also enhanced to the tune of Rs.64/- per month. Therefore, absolutely there has been no dispute in regard to the deduction of the amount styled as premium and the sum being credited to the account of the respondents no.1 and 2.
The appellant has submitted that the respondent no.3 deducted the premium and credited the same to the account of the respondents no.1 and 2 from the salary of the appellant towards the premium and the insurance policy under the APGLIC scheme which is compulsory for each and every government employee. The respondent no.3 contended that the appellant had never represented to him that he had not received the insurance policy bond and further he submitted that the appellant being a senior assistant whose work was to look after the office work such as preparation of salary bills, advances, watching of all the official recoveries in regard to the policy no. and GPF A/c No. and monthly instalments and other official correspondence.
It is true that the appellant had consciously permitted the deduction premium from his salary under PGLIC scheme at the initial stage of his service and subsequently on his being permitted as superintendent in the College of Nursing Home Visakhapatnam. The appellant ought to have made enquiry in regard to the policy bond which was to be issued by the respondents no.1 and 2 in his favour on receipt of the premium from the respondent no.3. However, the ignorance and laxity on the party of the appellant does not absolve the respondents no.1 and 2 from their liability of making refund of the amount which was received without issuing any insurance policy as they were statutorily obligated to issue insurance policy bond to every government employee as and when the premium was paid therefor. It was the bounden duty of the respondents no1 and 2 to carefully consider the type of the amount received from the employer of a particular employee which was styled as the premium for the insurance policy under APGLIC Scheme.
The process of receipt of the premium was uninterruptedly continued by the respondents’ no.1 and 2 for as many as 18 years till appellant was retired form his service. This laxity on the party of the respondents’ no.1 and 2 in retaining the amount received under a particular head which was not correct even according to them, cannot be justified. The respondents no.1 and 2 had kept the amount collected from the respondent no.3 drawn from the salary of the appellant, arbitrarily and negligently which had caused excruciating mental agony to the appellant who retired from the service having entertained a fond hope that the maturity value of the amount he deposited every month would be a source of income during his post-retiral age as also used for expenses for leading advanced stage of life. Therefore we are inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that the District Forum had erroneously dismissed his complaint. We hold the appellant entitled to refund of Rs.9447/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of payment of premium from his salary.
In the result the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum dated 11.10.2006 in C.D.No.217 of 2004. The respondents no.1 and 2 directed to refund the amount of Rs.9447/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of payment of premiums from the salary of the appellant and costs of Rs.2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.