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, LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Wednesday, 20th April 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 92 / 2015
1. Gangarapu Sujatha, W/o Late Gangarapu Gopal @ Raja Gopal,
Hindu, House wife 41 years,
2. Gangarapu Anusha, D/o Late Gangarapu Gopal @ Raja Gopal,
25 years, Hindu, both are residents of D.No. 15/786,
Zinna Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District.
….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Post Master General, B.Camp, Kurnool Region, Kurnool.
2. The Branch Manager, Nandaluru Post Office,
Nandaluru Postal Life Insurance, Nandalur, Kadapa.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, YMR Colony,
Proddatur – 516 360, Kadapa District.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kadapa Division,
Kalakshatram, Kadapa – 516 001 ….. Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 12-4-2016 in the presence of Sri J. Ravi, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Subramanyam, Govt. Pleaders for Respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 & 14 R/w Section 2 (1) (i) (iii) (c) and (g) of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The husband of 1s complainant and father of 2nd complainant by name late Gangarapu Gopal @ Raja Gopal kept both the complainants as nominees of policy, hence oth of them are having common interest over the assured amount and so both the complainants are filing the present complaint.
3. The respondent is the post master General for the Kunrool Region which includes Kadapa District also. The R2 is the Branch manager in Nandaluru post office, who received the RPLI policy of husband of 1t complainant and father of 2nd complainant. The R3 is the Superintendent of Post office at Proddatur who received the premium amount for the policy and R4 is the Superintendent of post offices Kadapa who issued RPLI policy to the husband of 1st complainant and father of 2nd complainant by name G. Gopal @ Raja Goipal. Hence, all the respondents are proper and necessary parties to the complaint.
4. It is submitted that the Deprtment of Post offices has introduced Rural Post Life Insurance Policy with attractive benefits. The husband of 1st complainant and father of 2nd complaiannat by name Gangaraju Gopal @ Raja Gopal attracted the benefits of policy and offered to take the policy. All the respodnnets after going through the full particulars and health condition of above said G. Gopal @ Raja Gopal allowed him to take the policy. Accordingly the above said G. Gopal @ Raja Gopal took policy from office of R2 b paying yearly premium of Rs. 16,920/- vide receipt No. 30, dt. 14-5-2011. Both the complainants are nominees of he said policy. The period of policy will be expired by 31-5-2029, premium payment is annually and the sum assured for the policy is Rs. 3,00,000/-. After receipt of the premium, the R1 has sent a policy certificate vide policy No. EA3220220 to the Gangarpu Raja Gopal.
5. R3 issued premium passbook to G. Gopal @ Raja Gopal. The above said G. Gopal @ Raja Gopal was regularly paying premiums for the above policy for the year 20120-13 and for the year 2013-14 vide receipt dt. 31-7-2012 and 31-7-2013 to the respondents. There are no adverse comments from the respondents relating to the premium of policy by late G. Gopal @ Raja Gopal. Unfortunately, the husband of 1st complainant and father of 2nd complainant by name G. Gopal @ Raja Gopal on 28-9-2013 was suffering with server pain and immediately the complainants requested Dr. A. Prasad to come and give treatment to him. Immediately, Dr. A. Prasad attended to the patient and by that time he died due to Cardio Respiratory problem. As on the date of death, the policy was in force.
6. It is further submitted that after the death of Gangarapu Gopal @ Raja Gopal, the complainants being the nominees of the policy submitted claim to R1 to R4 of for settlement of the sum assured under the policy of late G. Gopal @ Raja Gopal with all necessary documents sought by them. Respondents 1 to 4 have received the death claim of complainant in the year 2013 and could not settle the death claim of late G. Gopal @ Raja Gopal in spite of lapse of 1 ½ years. The complainants have supplied all the documents sought by the respondents for settlement of death claim of late G. Gopal @ Raja Gopal. Ultimately, after long gap of time the R3 issued a repudiation letter to the complainants on 19-2-2015 stating that, “the date of birth and cause of death fake and bogus of the insurance policy. The competent authority has decided that the claim is fit for rejection”. There is no specific reason in the repudiation letter that, the cause of death is fake and bogus. However as per the conditions mentioned in the policy, it is the duty of the respondents to confirm the age of the policy holder. In spite of payment of premium for the last three years, the respondents have not objected the policy holder to continue the policy. As per the passport issued by the competent authorities, the date of birth of deceased is 01-6-1969 and hence, the same was mentioned in the policy and copy of passport also enclosed with the policy certificate at the time of taking policy by the deceased. There may be a small difference of approximate age of the insured in the house hold cards, election cards and Aadhar cards and there is every possibility to change the date of birth in the above said certificates. But there is no possibility to change the date of birth in passport, since the competent authorities after detailed enquiry issued the passport to the persons. However, the age mentioned in the house hold card and Aadhar cards is not the basis to the respondents to reject the claim of complaints. However, as per the policy, the competent authority to decide the death claims is Director General of Posts or the person who is authorized to act appointed by the President of India. As seen from the repudiation letter dt. 19-2-2015 in what capacity, the R1 is issued the repudiation letter not stated in the repudiation letter. After receipt of repudiation letter the complainants are consulted all the respondents personally several times and requesting all of them to settle the claim. Then the complainants filed this complaint before this forum.
7. It is therefore that the complainant prays that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to pass order in favor of the complainant against the respondents (a) directing the respondents to pay the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at 18% p.a from the date of death of the complainant’s husband that is from 18-7-2013 to till the date of realization, (b) direct the respondents to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant and (c) direct the respondents to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of complaint and also direct for such other and further reliefs as such the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
8. Counter field by R3 and the same was adopted by R1, R2 and R4 with a memo.
9. The complaint filed by the complainants is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainants are put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the complaint except those which are expressly admitted herein by these respondents.
10. The respondents submit that it is a fact that a policy was issued by R2 herein on receipting the premium in the name of one Gangarapu Gopal. While taking the policy, the policyholder submitted the Xerox copy of his pass port in proof o his identity. It is submitted that the respondents herein accepted the proof of identity and issued the policy in the name of G. Goipal. It is further submitted that the policy certificate bearing EA – 3220220 premium pass book, premium receipt dt. 14-5-2012 were also issued in the name of G. Gopal.
11. It is submitted that the complainant s here in approached the respondents herein stating that they are nominees of the policy holder and they stated that the policy holder died on 28-9-2013 and they claimed the policy amount. In support of their claim they produced the death certificate issued by the proddatur Municipality and a medical certificate issued by one Dr. A. Prasad. But in all the said documents the name of the deceased is shown as Gangarapu Raja Gopal.
12. It is submitted that as there is difference in the name of the policy holder and the name of the deceased the respondents herein requested the complaints to submit any proof like Ration card, Aadhar card or SSC certificate to prove that the deceased person is no other than the policy holder. At this juncture the respondents here in would like to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble forum on examination of name of insured with the document submitted as date of birth proof i.e. pass port copy it was found that insured name was shown as G. Gopal. In the policy proposal form submitted by the policy holder also the name of the proponent is noted as G. Gopal and he also signed as G. Gopal only.
13. The respondents herein further submit that as per Rural Postal Life Insurance rule No. 5 (c) below the rule 41 of post office insurance fund rules stipulated as under “C in case of early death i.e. before completion of 3 years from the date of acceptance of a policy will be investigated thoroughly to enquire if the insured while submitted the proposal had suppressed material information which otherwise would not have allowed the proposed insured to be eligible for postal life insurance and it should be examined whether insured was suffering from any disease 3 years prior to taking of policy. Accordingly the R3 herein made enquiry about the death of the deceased G. Raja Gopal which revealed that the said G. Raja Gopal was suffering with serious kidney problem prior to 3 years from his death and he died due to the ill health because of kidney problem, where as the claimants in their representation to this respondents stated that the cause of death of the deceased is due to heart attack. It is further submitted that even in the medical certificate produced by complainant as the doctor who issued the medical certificate by name Sri A. Prasad stated that even before he went to the house of the deceased the said G. Raja Gopal was died and also stated that the cause of death may be due to heart attack. It clearly shows that even the doctor who attended the said G. Raja Gopal was also not sure about the cause of death of the said deceased person.
14. It is submitted that as the claimants are demanding for the policy amount which involves the public interest in general, it is the bounded duty and obligation on the part of the complainants to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the insured person G. Gopal and the deceased G. Raja Gopal is one and the same and he was not suffering with any previous deceases like kidney problem and he died only due to heart attack. Hence, the claim made by the complainants is not just without the appropriate proofs and un tenable in the eye of law. The respondents repudiated the claim vide letter No. RPLI/DC/claim/14-15, dt. 19-2-2015 at Proddatur. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against these respondents in the interest of justice.
15. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainants are eligible for compensation as prayed by them or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the
part of the Respondents or not?
iii. To what relief?
16. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A14 were marked and on behalf of the respondents no documents were marked.
17. Point Nos. 1 & 2. Ex. A1 and A2 prove that the deceased had taken Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy vide policy No. EA – 3220220. Ex. A3 clearly shows that the deceased had paid premium amount. Ex. A4 proves that there was correspondence between the complainant and respondents. Ex. A10 to A14 are the name proofs of the deceased. Ex. A1 clearly shows that complainants are the nominees of the deceased policy holder. The respondents did not file even a single piece of evidence to prove that the deceased and the policy holder are different person. The respondents failed to prove their version and they did not filed any single piece of evidence to prove their version. So there is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents 1 to 4. At the same the complaints are eligible for compensation as prayed by them.
18. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) with 9% interest from the date of death of the deceased (husband of the 1st complainant) towards accidental insurance coverage, pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) till realization, pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards mental agony, Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders to the complainant.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 20th April 2016.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 P/c of policy certificate No. EA 3220220 issued by the respondents.
Ex. A2 P/c of premium pass book dt. 31-5-2011.
Ex. A3 P/c of premium receipt dt. 14-5-2012.
Ex. A4 P/c of death certificate dt. 7-1-2014.
Ex. A5 P/c of letter of respondents dt. 18-3-2014.
Ex. A6 P/c of letter of complainant dt. Nil.
Ex. A7 P/c of repudiation letter dt. 12-8-2015.
Ex. A8 P/c of legal notice dt. 3-8-2015.
Ex. A9 P/c of postal receipts dt. 3-8-2015.
Ex. A10 P/c of medical certificate dt. 16-8-2014.
Ex. A11 P/c of passport of deceased 18-4-2001.
Ex. A12 P/c of voter identity card of deceased.
Ex. A13 P/c of aadhar card of deceased.
Ex. A14 P/c of Household card of deceased family.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents NIL
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri J. Ravi, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri P. Subramanyam, Govt. Pleader for respondents,
Kadapa.
B.V.P
