BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

                                           SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER                                    

Thursday, 15^th December 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  64 / 2016

D. Ruthamma, W/o D. Obanna, aged 33 years,

Residing at Peddaputta Village, Vallur Post and Mandal,

Kadapa District.                                                          ………… Complainant.

Vs.

1.  The Chief Post Master General, A.P. Circle,

     Abids, Hyderabad – 500001.

2.  The Postmaster General, O/o Rural Postal Life Insurance,

     Regional Office, R.P.L.I., Sri Krishna Nagar,

     Kurnool – 518002, Kurnool District.

3.  The Superintendent, O/o the Superintendent Post Offices,

     Postal Department, YMR Colony, Proddatur Division,

     Proddatur – 516360, Kadapa District.                     …..  Opposite parties.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 06-12-2016 in the presence of Sri Y. Srinivasulu, Advocate for complainant and Sri G. Gurrappa, Advocate for Opposite parties and  upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.             The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to pay policy amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- plus vested bonus along with interest to the Complainant from the date of death i.e. 7-01-2014, to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards mental  agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 

2.             The averments of the complaint which are necessary to decide this matter is as follows :-  The Complainant is cousin daughter of one Dandu Obulamma, W/o Subbanna and she had taken three Rural Postal Life Insurance Policies bearing Nos. 1) EA-3219815 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-dt.11-8-2011, 2) EA-3298778 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- dt. 29-9-2011 and 3) EA-3641404 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- dt. 28-9-2012  from the Opposite parties.  The policy holder Dandu Obulamma had regularly paid premium amount of Rs. 550/-, Rs. 275/- and Rs. 570/- p.m to the above policies and maturity term of the above policies is 60 years.  As per said policies in case the insured died before the date of maturity the Opposite parties have to pay assured amount plus vested bonus, likewise in survival also.  The policy holder Dandu Obulamma died on 07-1-2014.  The Complainant is the nominee of the policyholder Dandu Obullamma. At the time of taking policy the policy holder was hale and healthy.  After the death of policy holder the Complainant being nominee had submitted original Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy documents for the death claim of policy holder.  But the Opposite parties have not settled death claim and O.P.3 sent reply letter dt. 21-1-2016 with false allegations stating that the Complainant is not entitled for the assured amount and vested bonus as D. Obullamma died before maturity of the policy.  The act of the Opposite parties is deficiency in service on their part and the Complainant suffered mental agony and in spite of Complainant approached Opposite parties for several times they are postponing on some pretext or other. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.

3.             Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed common counter admitting that D. Obullamma had taken three Rural Postal Life Insurance Policies on 11-8-2011, 29-9-2011 and 28-9-2012 as per policies referred by the Complainant in the complaint and also admitted the premiums paid by the policy holder and the Complainant is the nominee for all the three policies by D. Obullamma.  But the Opposite parties denied other allegations regarding deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled for the claim amount.  It is further averred that on examination it is found the age of the policy holder is 32 years and the nominee i.e. Complainant is aged 30 years and the Complainant has no direct relation with the Complainant. The study certificate of policy holder and admission No. 245 for the year 1985-86 produced by policy holder at the time of taking policies is bogus.  The insurant had no adequate source of income to pay premium for Rs. 5,00,000/- for three policies.  The insurant had not died due to heart attack but died normally.  The insured suppressed date of birth of her and obtained polices.  The insurant was an aged person at the time of taking polices.  Thus the claims are rejected by the competent authority.  The insurant died on 7-1-2014 before completion of three years after accepting the policies.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4.             On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties as claimed by the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
3. To what relief?

5.             No oral evidence reported by the parties.  But  on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A6 documents are marked and on behalf of Opposite parties Ex. B1 to B6 documents are marked.         

6.             Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record placed by the parties.

7.             Point Nos. 1 & 2.  Learned counsel for Complainant contended that the Opposite parties admitted that the Complainant is nominee of the policy holder Dandu Obullamma under three policies as per Exs. A2 to A4 and paid premiums regularly and died on 7-1-2014 and Complainant is the nominee of the insurant.  But they denied settling the claim only on the pretext that the Complainant had given wrong date of birth and the Complainant has no relation with the policy holder to mention her as nominee, which are not tenable and the Complainant is entitled that the sum assured under the policies with vested bonus. But the Opposite parties did not pay the same.  Hence, there is deficiency in service on their part.  Therefore, the complaint may be allowed as prayed.

8.             On the other hand the learned counsel for Opposite parties contended that the Complainant suppressed the age at the time of taking polices and the insurant died normal death and nominee is not related to the insurant.  Therefore, the claim was rightly rejected by the Opposite parties.  Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.             In this case there is no dispute that one Dandu Obullamma obtained Rural Postal Life Insurance Policies for Rs. 2,00,000/- on 11-8-2011,   Rs. 1,00,000/- dt. 29-9-2011 and Rs. 2,00,000/- dt. 28-9-2012 as per Exs. A2 to A4 policies and she paid premiums regularly till her death on 7-1-2014 as per Ex. A5.  It is also not in dispute between the parties that the Complainant is the nominee of Dandu Obullamma policy holder under Ex. A2 to A4 mentioned by her and the policies were accepted by the Opposite parties and collected premium from the policy holder as per terms of policy till her death.  The Complainant by filing Exs. A1 to A5 proved the same.  After the death of the policy holder Dandu Obullamma the Complainant who is the nominee under three polices Exs. A2 to A4 made death claim as per Ex. A1 to the Opposite parties, but the Opposite parties rejected the claim as per Ex. A6 stating that there is much age gap between policy holder Dandu Obullamma and the Complainant who is the nominee and said to be cousin daughter of policy holder.  But the contention of Opposite parties that the insurant is aged 32 years, whereas nominee is 30 years so the Complainant / nominee is not a cousin daughter of the policy holder cannot be sustained.  The policy holder can mention anybody’s name as nominee of her if she is interested in that person to receive policy benefits.   There is no hard fast rule that the nominee should be a relation with the policy holder.  So we did not see any reason to reject the claim of Complainant by Opposite parties on this aspect. 

10.            Coming to the next reason for rejecting the claim by Opposite parties that the policy holder produced wrong certificate of her date of admission in the school at the time of taking policies.  To disprove the same the Opposite parties have not filed any record except the letter said to have been issued by the Head Master, M.P. Primary School, Peddaputta dt. 21-11-2016.  A perusal of the above letter does not inspire confidence to prove that it was issued by Teacher, M.P. Primary school, Peddaputta village as no affidavit of that teacher is filed along with document.  A Photostat copy of certificate filed by the Opposite parties along with Ex. A6 proved that the insurant Dandu Obullamma date of birth is 5-7-1980 and she studied 1^st class to 3^rd class from 1985-88 in M.P. Primary School, Peddaputta.  A  perusal of Ex. B5 proposed publication revealed that it was certified by Branch Post Master, Peddaputta branch office regarding particulars of Dandu Obullamma of the policy holder of the above policies.  Under any stretch of imagination it cannot be believed that the policy holder Dandu Obullamma gave false information at the time of taking polices under Ex. A2 to A4 and also in mentioning the Complainant as nominee of her policies.  There is also no doubt regarding death of deceased Dandu Obullamma on 7-1-2014. Even if she died normally and naturally as per contention of Opposite parties still the nominee is entitled for the benefits under the above polices, as the policy holder had paid premiums regularly and died after two years of the polices.  But the Opposite parties have rejected the claim that they have enquired and rejected the claims stating that the claim is false.  Even as per Exs. B2 to B4 enquiry reports there is no information whom they have examined and what is the material they gathered regarding rejection of claim.  Therefore, the bald reports Exs. B2 to B4 cannot be accepted to reject the claim of the Complainant.  Since, the Complainant is the nominee of the insurant / policy holder, Dandu Obullamma under Ex. A2 to A4 and the policy holder had paid premiums regularly and died on 7-1-2014, the Complainant is entitled for the death benefits under the policies but the Opposite parties rejected the claim of Complainant without sufficient reason and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against the Opposite parties.  Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.

11.            Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay policies amount of                        Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) under three policies i.e. 1)                        Rs. 2,00,000/- for the policy No.EA-3219815, dt. 11-8-2011, 2) Rs. 1,00,000/- for the policy No. EA-3298778, dt. 29-9-2011 and 3) Rs. 2,00,000/- for the policy No. EA-3641404, dt. 28-9-2012 belonged to Dandu Obulamma with vested bonus and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization and shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

                   Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 15^th December 2016

MEMBER                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                             For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex. A1         P/c of death claim application Annexure-VI submitted by the Complainant to the O.P.3.

Ex. A2         P/c of Rural Postal Life Isurance (Grameena Santosh) policy certificate bearing No. EA-3219815 an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- dt. 11-8-2011 issued by the O.P.3 in favor of D. Obullamma.

Ex. A3         P/c of Rural Postal Life Isurance (Grameena Santosh) policy certificate bearing No. EA-3298778 an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- dt. 29-9-2011 issued by the O.P.3 in favor of D. Obullamma

Ex. A4         P/c of Rural Postal Life Isurance (Grameena Santosh) policy certificate bearing No. EA-3641404 an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- dt. 28-9-2012 issued by the O.P.3 in favor of D. Obullamma.

Ex. A5         P/c of death certificate of D. Obulamma issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Peddaputta Village, Vallur Mandal, Kadapa Dist. Dt. 10-1-2014.

Ex. A6         Reply letter issued by O.P.3 to the Complainant dt. 21-1-2016.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties: -  

Ex. B1                   Enquiry report dt. 25-11-2014 R-AP-EA.3219815 issued by Superintendent of Post office, Proddatur.

Ex. B2                   Enquiry report dt. 25-11-2014 R-AP-EA-3298778 issued by the superintendet of Post office, Proddatur.

Ex. B3                   Enquiry report dt. 25-11-2014 R-AP-EA-3641404 issued by the superintendet of Post office, Proddatur.

Ex. B4                   Copy of inspector report dt. 24-10-2014 issued by the inspector posts, Proddatur south sub division, Proddatur.

Ex. B5                   P/c of proposal publication and declaration advertisement dt. 29-9-2011.

Ex. B6                   Copy of letter issued by the Head Teacher, M.P. Primary School Peddaputta Village, dt. 21-11-2016.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

                            1) Sri Y. Srinivasulu, Advocate for Complainant.                           

                            2) Sri G. Gurrappa, Advocate for Opposite parties.

B.V.P