Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/914/2017

B.R.Narayanappa, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior PostMaster - Opp.Party(s)

22 Apr 2019

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 03.05.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 22.04.2019

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027    

 

 

CC.No.914/2017

DATED THIS THE 22^nd APRIL OF 2019

PRESENT

 

 

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

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	B.R.Narayanappa, S/o Late Rangappa, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.2/1, 5th B Main, Near Bank of Baroda, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore-560 079.   By.Adv.V.Chandrappa	1         2	Senior Postmaster, Rajajinagar Head Office, Bangalore-560 010.     Senior Superintendent of Posts, Department of Posts, Bengaluru West Division, Bengaluru-560 086.   By.Adv.Prakash Rao.K.

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

1.        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant pray to direct the OPs to pay the premium amount of Rs.91,562/- along with interest, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as damages  towards mental agony, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of litigation and to pass such other orders.

2. The brief fact of the complaint is as under.          

            The complainant submitted that he had availed the Postal Life Insurance Policy from the Ops vide Endowment policy bearing No.KT-505248-CS for a sum assured of Rs.1,50,000/- for 60 months on 12.2.2011 and the policy expires on 12.12.2016. The complainant had paid the monthly premium of Rs.2,693/-. The complainant was under the impression that he had paid the premium for 36 months as stipulated in the policy as the complainant had lost his passbook. After the maturity of the policy period, the complainant approached the Ops for the maturity amount. The Ops have informed that the complainant’s policy is lapsed and void, all the benefits of the policy have been forfeited as per POLI rules since the complainant has paid 34 months premium and he has not paid 2 months premium as per the policy.

            2a.      The complainant submitted that the Ops have not received any notice, or intimation to pay the balance premium amount. When the complainant approached the Ops with the balance 2 months premium amount, they refused to accept the 2 months due premium and informed the amount deposited for 34 months will also be not refunded. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice, for which the Ops replied saying that they have forfeited the amount and the policy has been closed. Hence, this complaint.

 

            3.        The notice was ordered to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties did appear and filed their version and denying the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant.   The OPs submits that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such frivolous complaint. The complainant is seeking recovery of the money to the tune of Rs.91,562/- with interest, such being the case, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and the complaint is also barred by limitation.

            3a.      The Ops further submitted that the complainant had availed the Postal Life Insurance Policy bearing No.KT-505248-CS under endowment assurance maturing on attaining the age of 60 years. The total assured amount was Rs.1,50,000/-. The policy commences from 12.12.2011 with the premium amount of Rs.2,693/- per month. The Ops further submitted that on 4.1.2017, the complainant applied for maturity claim. The maturity date of the policy is 12.12.2016.  The complainant had paid only 34 months and failed to pay the premium from April 2014. Hence, the policy was lapsed on April 2014. In view of the fact, since the complainant dishonored the condition of the policy, the prayer of the complainant was not considered because the very request was against the rule of POLI i.e. as per Rule 44, 57 (1), 5 (37) of the POLI (Post Office Life Insurance Rules-2011).  On these grounds and other grounds, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OPs have filed their affidavit and reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objection. Both parties have filed written arguments. The complainant and OPs have produced documents which were marked. We have heard the arguments of both sides and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.  

5.        Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1) Whether the Complainant prove the deficiency in service on

                the part of the OPs, if so, whether he is entitled for the

                relief sought for?

           2) What Order?

 

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Negative

 

Point No.2: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:      On perusal of the pleadings, objections, evidence and documents of both the parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had availed the Postal Life Insurance Policy from the Ops vide Endowment policy bearing No.KT-505248-CS for a sum assured of Rs.1,50,000/- for 60 months on 12.2.2011 and the policy expires on 12.12.2016 and he had paid the monthly premium of Rs.2,693/-.  The complainant’s contention that he was under the impression that he had paid the premium for 36 months as stipulated in the policy as the complainant had lost his passbook. After the maturity of the policy period, the complainant approached the Ops for the maturity amount. The Ops have informed that the complainant’s policy is lapsed and void, all the benefits of the policy have been forfeited as per the rules since the complainant has paid 34 months premium and he has not paid 2 months premium as per the policy.

8.        The Ops submitted that the maturity date of the policy is 12.12.2016. The complainant had paid only 34 months and he has failed to pay the premium from April 2014. Hence, the policy was lapsed on April 2014. As per the rules of POLI- 44, 57 (1), 5 (37), the complainant is not entitled for the maturity benefit as it is violated the condition of the policy. The rules of POLI-44, 57 (1), 5 (37) which read as follows:

44- “ It is the responsibility of the insurant to pay the premium in any Post Office”

57 (1) -“If in the case of a policy which has remained in force for not less than thirty six months from the date of acceptance of the policy, and where any premium/premia have become due after such period, not paid either on first day of the month for which the premium is due or within the period of grace allowed as per rule 44, the policy shall cease to be active and treated as lapsed at the end of twelve months from the date the first unpaid premium had become due in respect of such policy;

5 (37)- “Surrender Value” of a policy means the amount that is payable to an insured, when he foregoes the contingent benefit of his policy and surrenders it for an immediate cash payment, provided atleast 36 premiums have been paid and policy has completed minimum 36 months duration.

On perusal of the rules, it is clear that the policy term is 36 months. Admittedly, the complainant has not paid 36 months premium. As per the rules, the complainant cannot surrender the policy by paying the premium of 34 months. The same is contrary to the rules. Further, the complainant has accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the complainant is estopped from claiming refund of the premium amount before completion of 36 months. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The Ops have refused to refund the amount as per the rules. Hence, we come to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the Complainant liable to be dismissed holding that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we answered the Point No.1 in the negative.

9.        POINT NO.2: In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open Forum on 22^nd April 2019).

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)    PRESIDENT

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

B.R.Narayanappa., who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-P1	Copy of the legal notice dt.13.2.2017
Ex-P2	Copy of the postal acknowledgement
Ex-P3	Postal receipt
Ex-P4	Copy of the letter dt.2.3.2017
Ex-P5	Copy of the postal cover
Ex-P6-P10	Copy of letter dt.3.4.2017, 28.2.2017, 20.2.2017, 4.2.2017, 25.3.2017 issued by Department of Posts.
Ex-P11	Postal Endowment Assurance Policy

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

Vijayakumar B.H., Public Relation Inspector., who being the Opposite Party/s was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party

 

Ex-B1	Letter of authorization
Ex-B2	Copy of the intimation dt.4.2.2017
Ex-B3	Reply to legal notice dt.2.3.2017
Doc-1	Rules of Post office life insurance rules-2011
(ROOPA.N.R) MEMBER		(PRATHIBHA .R.K)       PRESIDENT