Apgli Govt Of A P vs Tirumella Vijayalakshmi

1.OPPOSITE parties 1 to 5 are the appellants.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Consumer Forum -I, East Godavari at Kakinada in C.D. No. 31/2001 dated 19.4.2005 the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are set out as hereunder:

THE complainants husband worked as Draughtsman, Grade -III at Ganapavaram in Prakasam District. He underwent some transfers and later promoted as Draughtsman, Grade -II. The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced Life Insurance Scheme and a premium of Rs. 16 was deducted from his salary every month and he submitted his proposal for insurance on his life in the prescribed form and policy bearing No. 427084(A) showing 1.2.1980 as the date of commencement of risk and 30.6.2005 as date of maturity and assured sum was Rs. 4,980. The Government of Andhra Pradesh increased the sum assured from time -to -time and ultimately the sum assured was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000 and the monthly premium was increased from Rs. 16 to Rs. 125 per month. The Head of the Office in which the complainants husband worked used to deduct premium and sent the same to APGLI. While working as Draughtsman, Grade -II in Field Machinery Division at Dowlaiswaram, the complainants husband died and the complainants submitted the claim forms to APGLI but the opposite parties 1 to 5 failed to settle the claim in spite of several letters and notice dated 11.10.2000. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum for appropriate relief.

THE 5th opposite party filed a counter admitting that late T. Ramamohan Rao, the complainants husband worked as Draughtsman, Grade -II in the office of the Executive Engineer, F.M. Division, Tripurantakan in Prakasam District and insured his life with APGLI by making payment of Rs. 16. His proposal was accepted and policy No. 427084(A) was issued for the assured sum of Rs. 4,980 and that he expired on 19.6.1999. It is contended that after submission of the claim by the complainant, on verification of the file, premiums from 1990 -91 onwards were not available and a letter was addressed to the Assistant Director of Insurance, Khammam and Joint Director of Insurance, Warangal with a request to send the premium credit immediately for settlement of the claim. It is also contended that the premium was enhanced to 125 but proposal form was not submitted for issuance of policy for the enhanced premium and without issuance of policy, risk could not be covered as per Departmental Rules. The claim was settled for the assured sum of Rs. 4,980 under policy No. 427084(A) and an amount of Rs. 19,084 inclusive of sum assured, bonus and excess amount were paid and, therefore, they pray that there is no deficiency of service on their part. The District Forum on a detailed enquiry and based on Exs. A1 and A8 allowed the complaint directing opposite parties 1 to 5 to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of policy No. 427084(A) and also on the assumption that another policy was issued by APGLI after commencement of deduction of monthly premium at the enhanced rate of Rs. 125 and pay the same after deducting Rs. 19,084 already paid together with interest at 9% from 19.6.1999 the date of death of the complainants husband together with costs of Rs. 1,000.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand that the Drawing Officer and the respondent/complainants husband failed to submit the proposal form and hence there is no negligence on their part and that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. It is also stated that as per G.O.Ms. No. 43, Finance and Planning (Admn. -II) Department, dated 28.1.1999 and G.O.Ms. No. 368 Finance and Planning (Admn. -II) Department dt. 15.11.1994 the Drawing Officer must send the proposal form to APGLI Department for making the necessary payment. We have gone through the record. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent/complainants husband worked as Draughtsman, Grade -II in the office of the Executive Engineer, F.M. Division, Tripurantakan in Prakasam District and insured his life with APGLI by making payment of Rs. 16. His proposal was accepted and policy No. 427084(A) was issued for the assured sum of Rs. 4,980 and that the Government of Andhra Pradesh increased the sum assured from time -to -time and ultimately the sum assured was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000 and the monthly premium was increased from Rs. 16 to Rs. 125 per month. The Head of the Office in which the complainants husband worked used to deduct premium and sent the same to APGLI. The only dispute is that both the Drawing Officer and the respondent/complainants husband failed to submit a proposal form but it is to be seen that the enhanced premium was received and accepted even without a proposal and for any failure on the part of the drawing officer, the applicant cannot be made to suffer. The District Forum has rightly taken into consideration the various judgments given by the Apex Court, A.P. Administrative Tribunal and following the judgment of this Commission in III (1998) CPJ 255=1998 ALD (Cons.) 24 in Director of Insurance, A.P. Government, Hyderabad v. G. Vijaya Lakshmi, held that A.P. Government Life Insurance Department is not performing any sovereign function and it must be treated as doing the business of insurance for remuneration because premium is being charged and deducted from the salary, and allowed the complaint. The order passed by the District Forum in our view does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance six weeks. Appeal dismissed.