| Complaint Case No. CC/815/2015 |
| | | | 1. Rahuldev | | Rahuldev, S/o Bakkappa, No.3/146/A, Sirsi (a), Bidar Taluk, Bidar District. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Post Master, Saraswathpuram Head Post Office and another | | 1. Post Master, Grade-III, Saraswathipuram, Head Post Office, Mysuru. | | 2. Manager | | 2. Manager (CPC-PLI CLAIMS), O/o the Post Master, Saraswathipuram Head Post Office, Mysuru. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.815-2015 DATED ON THIS THE 24.06.2016 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi B.Sc., LLB., - MEMBER 3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | | : | Rahuldev, S/o Bakkappa, No.3/146/A, Sirsi(a), Bidar Taluk, Bidar District. (Sri H.G.Krishnamurthy, Adv.) | | | | | | V/S | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | | : | - Post Master, Grade-III, Saraswathipuram, Head Post Office, Mysuru.
- Manager (CPC-PLI-CLAIMS), O/o the Post Master, Saraswathipuram Head Post Office, Mysuru.
(Smt. S.Leelavathi, Adv.) | | | | | | |
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | Date of filing of complaint | : | 21.12.2015 | Date of Issue notice | : | 28.12.2015 | Date of order | : | 24.06.2016 | Duration of Proceeding | : | 6 MONTHS 3 DAYS |
Sri Devakumar.M.C. Member - The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to pay the policy benefits along with interest at 18% p.a. and compensation for the mental agony and such other reliefs.
- The complainant’s late sister purchased a Postal Life Insurance policy on 17.02.2014, from opposite party. The sum assured was `5,00,000/- and she died on 20.02.2015. The complainant being the nominee to the policy, made the claims by producing all the necessary documents. The opposite party failed to settle the claims. Aggrieved complainant, filed the complaint, seeking reliefs for the deficiency in service.
- Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed common version. The minor daughter was appointed as the nominee and she being minor the complainant has been appointed as the appointee, to claim the benefits. The death was reported on 24.03.2015 and the complainant made the claims. On investigation, the opposite party found that, the life insured was suffering from heart disease prior to the date of taking the policy. Hence, the repudiation. As such, no deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
- To prove the facts, both parties filed their respective affidavit and placed several documents. Both parties filed written arguments and submitted oral arguments. On perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
- The points arose for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in repudiation of the benefits of the insurance amount of his deceased sister and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- In the negative. Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- The holder of the Postal Life Insurance policy was the sister of the complainant. She died on 20.02.2015. The complainant was the nominee. The deceased paid the policy premium amount promptly until her death. The sum assured was `5,00,000/-. The complainant claimed the policy amount/benefits by producing all the relevant and necessary documents. The opposite party failed to settle the claims. Aggrieved complainant sought compensation for the mental agony, harassment. Hence, the complaint.
- The life assured made an application for the PLI – Policy on 15.01.2014 and the opposite party had issued the policy on 10.03.2014 for a sum of `5,00,000/-. The policy benefits had been claimed by the complainant. On investigation, the opposite party found that the life assured had undergone Angiogram at Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardio Vascular Sciences and Research Institute at Mysuru as inpatient from 11.01.2014 to 15.01.2014 i.e., prior to submission of the proposal form of the Insurance policy. This fact about her health was concealed and obtained the policy with malafide intention. As such, there is no deficiency in service in repudiation of the claims. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- On perusal of the material on record, it was true that the complainant had been appointed as the nominee by the life assured, in favour of her minor daughter. The policy was for a sum of `5,00,000/- and the premium had been paid promptly until her death. The letter dated 29.02.2016, confirms that, the life assured suffered with heart ailments and had taken treatment, i.e. angiogram, for the same. This fact had not been disclosed in the proposal form. Hence, the contention of opposite party regarding concealment of material facts is justified in rejection of the claims.
- However, the opposite party submitted that, it is ready to refund the entire premium paid by the life insured until her death, on humanitarian grounds, without any interest. Accordingly, the complainant entitled to receive the entire premium deposited by the life assured from the opposite party authorities. In view of the above observations, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
- Point No.2:- Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is hereby dismissed
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of June 2016) (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) PRESIDENT (M.V.BHARATHI) (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.) MEMBER MEMBER | |
