Orissa

Jajapur

CC/74/2017

Prasanna Kumar Mallik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Department of Posts,India Represented by the Superintendent of Post Offices Cuttack North Division. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Bhakta Batshala Sahoo,Manoj Kumar Nath ,Jagannath Panigrahi.

30 Dec 2019

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, I/C President,

                                                                            2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                 

                                                     Dated the 30 th  day of  December ,2019.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 74  of 2017

1.Prasanna ku.Mallik S/O Late Biswanath Mallik

2.Urmila Rout ,W/O Late Pratap Mallik

3.Laxmipriya  Mallik, D/O Late Pratap Mallik

4.Satyabrata Mallik, S/O Late Pratap Mallik  ,

S.L.No.3 and  4 are being minor

Represented by their mother Guardian  Urmila Rout

All are Vill. Sarabana , P.O. Singhapur ,P.S.Kuakhia     

Dist. Jajpur  

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                                                                      

                                                  (Versus)

1. Department of posts,India Represented by the Superintendent of post

Offices,Cuttack North Division,At.Cantonment Road,P.O.Buxi Bazar

P.S.Cantonment  Dist. Cuttack.

2. Dinesh Sahoo,Post master ,Vill./P.O. Singhapur,P.S.Kuakhia,

             Dt.Jajpur.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                           

For the Complainant:                              Sri B.B.Sahoo, Sri M.K.Nath, J.Panigrahi,  Advocates  .

For the Opp.Parties :                                Sri A.K.Das, Advocate.  

 

                                                                                                     Date of order:  30 .12. 2019.

SHRI  PITABAS MOHANTY   , PRESIDING MEMBER  

            Deficiency in  postal service is the grievance of the petitioners.

            The petitioner’s  have filed the present dispute  alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps .

            The  case of the petitioners  in shortly  is that  the petitioner no.1 is the LR  and  nominee of late Pratap ch.Mallik  and other petitioners are only  LRs of Late Pratap ch. Mallik  as wife ,  son and daughter . That the deceased Pratap ch.Mallik had made one RPLI policy  bearing No. OR-EA-592590  dt. 07.11.2012   during his life time . Unfortunately  Pratap ch.Mallik died on 24.03.2015 . The deceased insurant was made  regular payment of premium as per terms of the insurance policy . But  inadvertently  the deceased insurant could not continued regularly  after some days  of payment  due to want of money and discontinued for six months  but thereafter the deceased insurant made payment of premium to which the  O.Ps accepted  . The deceased was a lay man having no knowledge about terms and conditions of the policy . The deceased insurant deposited the premium with the O.p.no.2  ,the O.Ps should have asked the deceased insurant to revive the policy and should have demanded  charges if any or should have not accepted further premium from the deceased insurant .  When  the  O.P.no.2  accepted  premium ,  it  will be presumed that the policy has been regularized  once the O.Ps accepted the premium from the deceased insurant , they are estoped to deny to give  all  the benefits of the policy . The ops are jointly are severally liable to  give the benefits  of the policy .That the  O.P.no.2 2 did not took steps to release the  death claim  of the deceased insurant   as per  term and  conditions and  made information to the petitioner no. 1  to release only  the amount deposited   by the  deceased   insurant  Rs. 6,390/- . Thereafter the petitioner no.1 send a  pleader notice  to  O.P.no.2 to give all the benefits  as per terms and conditions of the policy   but the o.pno. 2  deny  to give  entire  benefits  as regular policy.  Hence finding no other alternative   the  petitioners   have  knocked the door of this  fora with the prayer to pass necessary orders to provide  all the  benefits  as regular policy  at the rate of Rs1,00,000 /-  with interest  at the rate of  12%  per annum till its realization.

            After notices the O.Ps have appeared through their learned advocate and filed their written version taking following stands :

That it is not disputed Late Pratap ch. Mallik   insured himself under RPLI  bearing policy No.  R-OR-EA-592590  . The  date of  commencement of the policy was on 07.11.2012     and the monthly premium of Rs 490/. The insurant had deposited the 1^st premium  dt.7.11.2012 at    kalan branch post office,  Dharamsala .The insurant  have deposited the premium from Dec-12 to Nov-13 regularly  at Kalan branch office under Dharmasla .  The total monthly 13 nos of premium no further deposit of premium was made till 24.11.14 .  There is a clear  condition mentioned in  back  side  of each policy bond bearing 14 no of  points  printed in  Odia  language  for   betterment and easy accessibility of terms of RPLI policy  to the general public . It is  clearly mentioned   that                    if a policy remains discontinued for a period of six  months within 3 years  from  the date of acceptance of the policy  . it becomes void and the policy need to be revived .  As per POLI Rule 2011 Rule 58(2) 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 .  It is seen that  there was  a deposit  of premium of Rs. 6204/-  ( premium 5880/ +  default fee  324 ) for the period of Dec-13 to Nov-14  without any revival of the policy  at Kalan branch office  vide Kalan BO receipt No.41 dt. 25.11.2014  as per policy rule 2011 ,Rule-58(3)  any payment purporting to be premium  payments made after a policy has become void shall be held in suspense and shall not be considered  as payment by way of premium to cover the risk of life assured    .

            In such cases premium as are held in suspense shall be refunded to the nominee/ legal heir as the case and when applied for , with saving bank rate of interest prevailing in post offices. The O>p had issued order vide sanction memo no .PLI/UCP/Misc dt.10.02.2017  regarding refund of deposited premium with SB rate of interest total amounting to Rs.6390/-  in favour of Sri Prasanna ku.Mallick . Sri Mallick  has  not received the payment of the refund amount  and sent a pleader notice on 20.06.2017. The O.P replied vide this office e letter no. LG-27 (D) Misc 14-15  dt. 20.07.17 regarding sanction of Rs6390/-  in favour of claimant Sri Mallick. It is submitted that neither Sri Mallick received the refunded amount nor made any correspondence with the O>p . The complaint petition received at this end on 20.11.2017  and on close scrutiny it is noticed that the amount of refund was erroneously sanctioned as Rs.6390/  instead of Rs. 14,778/-  As such it is respectfully submitted to kindly issue necessary order to the complainant to receive the refunded amount as per rules of Department of posts .   

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned counsel of  both the sides. After perusal of the record and documents in details it is observed that it is undisputed  fact that Pratap ch.Mallick  had made one RPLI policy before the O.Ps  .

It is also undisputed fact that the policy holder became defaulter regarding payment of the monthly premium of the policy . Thereafter the status of the policy  though  is void as per   rules of RPLI but  the O.Ps  have accepted  Rs 6,390/ as defaulted amount of the policy along with defaulted fee for the period Dec-13 to Nov-14 for revival of the policy but after the death  of policy holder when the petitioners have  claimed the policy amount the O.ps  only returned  the amount is received by them for revival of the policy  and taken the stand in their  written version  that as per POLI   Rule- 2011 Rule 58(2)   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   and any payment   received for the revival of the policy shall be held in suspense and shall not considered as payment by way of premium to cover the risk of life assured . The O.P also stated in their written version that after receiving notice of the present dispute on  scrutinizing  it is observed that the claimant is  entitled to get the premium  with interest  as per Departmental  rule -14,778/ - instead of Rs. 6390/- .   As such  it is our considered view that when the O.P.no.2 accepted  the premium,  it is presumed that the policy has been regularized  and there is no evidence filed from the side of the O.Ps to   establish  that the O.Ps   asked the policy holder for written application for revival of the policy . Accordingly  the dispute is allowed against the  O.Ps .

Hence this Order

  The O.Ps are directed to pay the insured amount of the RPLI policy of the petitioner within one moth after receipt of this order , filing which the insured amount will carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the present dispute  till its  realization .     The petitioner is  at liberty to take steps as per law  for recovery of the  above amount . No cost.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th  day of  December,2019. under my hand and seal of the Forum.