Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                                                Complaint No. : 538

                                                          Instituted on     : 14.09.2021 

                                                          Decided on       : 11.10.2022.

Smt. Sushila Devi aged 45 years W/o Sh. Daya Chand R/o H.No. 806/29 Near Safety Tank, Kamal Colony, Rohtak serving as Accountant in the Office of District Fisheris Officers, Mini Secretariat, Rohtak.

                                                                                                                ……….………..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Senior Superintendent of Post office, Rohtak Division, Rohtak.       

                                                                                                ..…….……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Milan, IPOs  for opposite parties.

                                                ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 08.06.2011 she obtained post life insurance policy No. HY-171515-CC from opposite party for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-. The premium was payable in monthly installments of Rs.855/- per month and the last premium due date was May, 2021. She regularly paid the premium for 27 months. But thereafter due to missing of her pass book of PLI, she could not deposit the further installments. The complainant contacted to opposite party in this regard, then they told that she has to pay the amount of Rs.85,000/- in one installment. But she was unable to pay such a huge amount. It is further submitted that complainant requested the concerned officials to refund the installments paid by her, then they told that the amount will be refunded to the complainant after completion of maturity period of policy i.e 08.06.2021. Thereafter on 01.06.2021, the complainant approached to the officials of the opposite party and filled her form for getting release the amount of installments paid by her and concerned officials asked her to come after some days. But when the complainant again visited the office of opposite party, then they refused to return the amount of the complainant without any reason. She also moved an application to Post Master in this regard, but no action has been taken. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the complainant purchased a Postal Life Insurance policy no.HY-171515-CC for sum assured Rs.100000/- on dated 08.06.2011 and the last premium due date was May 2021 but the premium is paid only upto 31.10.2013 as per record. It is further submitted that there is a provision for issuance of duplicate passbook as per Rule 32 of Postal Life Insurance(POLI) Rules 2011 but the complainant had never applied for the said passbook. Also, the complainant had not submitted any application for revival of her policy to this office which is required as per Rule 58 (1) and 58(2) of POLI Rules 2011. It is further submitted that complainant had not paid the due premium even within the grace period and further mentioning that in the light of the ibid Rules, the policy has become void and all claims to any benefit in virtue thereof shall ceases and all money that have been paid in consequences thereof shall be forfeited. Complainant has not submitted any claim form, a simple application dated 02.07.2021 had been received which has been suitably replied by Postmaster, Rohtak. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.       

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 16.06.2022. Sh. Jitender Singh, PRI(P), for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on 19.07.2022.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present complaint, it is not disputed that complainant had paid 27 installments but thereafter failed to deposit the installments due to lost of passbook. The premium was paid by the complainant upto 31.10.2013.. As per the complainant she could not deposit the installments due to lost of her pass-book.  However, perusal of record reveals that complainant had never applied for issuance of duplicate pass-book.  We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per rules mentioned in Annexure R-5 attached with the reply filed by the opposite party, under rule 56(2), it is submitted that : “In the case of a policy which has not completed thirty six month from the date of acceptance of the policy and where any premium/premia have become due, not paid either on first day of the month for which the premium is due or which the period of grace allowed as per Rule 44, the policy shall become void  and if death of insurant takes place at any time after becoming the policy void all claims to any benefit in virtue thereof shall cease and all money that have been paid in consequence thereof shall forfeited” except in case mentioned hereafter:

a)       Provided that for the purpose of this rule an insured person is not to be considered as in arrears of premium for any months so long as he has not been able to draw his pay, pension or subsistence allowance during suspension, or if the insured person is on leave in India, any leave allowance though due for the month next before it is due because of circumstances beyond his control.

b)      Provided further that the provision of (i) above shall not be applicable to the insurants who pay their premium/premia in cash.  

But in the present case the complainant herself has not paid the due premium even within the grace period  and as such the policy become void. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

6.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

11.10.2022.                                               

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                                                …………………………..

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member