N.Venkateswalu vs Branch Post Master Rytunagar Branch Rytunagar

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 03-11-2006 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 270/2004. By this order, the State Commission held as under: The appellant has (sic) taken a specific plea in the complaint and also in the evidence affidavit that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not issuing the Policy when the first installment amount of Rs.208/- was accepted and in not refunding the said amount of Rs.208/- to him. We agree with the submission made by the appellant/complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not refunding the first installment amount of Rs.208/-. The order of the District Forum, Kurnool dated 11-06-2003 in CD No. 273/1999 is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.208/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from 28-03-1997 (i.e. from the date of acceptance of the first installment amount of Rs.208/-) till the date of realisation and also to pay cost of Rs.500/-. Time for compliance six weeks.

THE petitioner (who was the appellant before the State Commission) was the complainant before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kurnool (in short the District Forum). He filed a consumer complaint in his capacity of the nominee of a Rural Postal Life Insurance (RPLI) policy, taken by one B. Anjaneyulu for Rs.50,000/-. Anjaneyulu had filled in the policy proposal form and also deposited the first premium of Rs.208/- on 28-03-1997 with the Branch Post Master, Nandyal, to whom he had submitted the RPLI proposal. THE case of the complainant was that though the Anjaneyulu continued to make repeated enquiries with the Branch Post Master about issuance of the policy document, he did not get any satisfactory reply. On 13-01-1999, the life assured died in an accident but the opposite parties (OPs) did not pay the policy amount to the complainant, who was the nominee, despite repeated requests. Alleging deficiency in service on this account, the complainant claimed the policy amount with accrued interest, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost. The complaint was contested by the OPs. They admitted that the deceased Anjaneyulu had submitted a proposal for RPLI policy for Rs.50,000/- and also paid Rs.208/- towards the provisional premium on 28-03-1997. However, the principal defence of the OPs was that the said proposal had not been accepted and policy documents had not been issued by the competent authority. The coverage of the risk of the life of the proposer would not commence, under the rules governing RPLI policies, till acceptance of the proposal by the competent authority. In this case, the OPs had returned the proposal (along with several other such proposals) to the Branch Post Office with the objection that the original receipt towards payment of the premium should be sent along with the proposal. As Anjaneyulu did not comply with this requirement till his death, the policy proposal remained without approval and hence there was no risk coverage for his life. The complainant was, therefore, not entitled to any payment on this ground.

After consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record, the District Forum held that the complainant had failed to establish his case and hence dismissed the complaint.

IN appeal, the State Commission held as already noted above. However, aggrieved by the relief awarded by the State Commission, the complainant has come up with this revision petition. We have heard Mr. G.L. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sewa Ram, learned counsel for the respondents/OPs.

THE basic facts relating to the case are not in dispute. Mr. Murthy would draw pointed attention to the affidavit filed by the Branch Post Master before the District Forum. THE following parts of the affidavit are relevant:-- I am the opposite party no. 1 in the above complaint petition. THE complaint is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts. All the allegations in the complaint are denied and put the complainants to strict proof thereof. (i) I am working as BPM, Rythunagar BO a/w Nandyal RS Sri B. Anjaneyulu, a native of Rythunagar had approached me for a RPLI policy of Rs.50,000/-. I have issued him the prescribed RPLI proposal form and he filled all the particulars in the proposal form and signed in it. After satisfying the detailed furnished in the RPLI proposal form. I have issued a PRLI receipt no. 6 for Rs.208/- being the monthly premium. Thus I collected the first premium and the receipt was handed over to Sri B. Anjaneuyulu, the proposer. THE relevant policy bond was not issued by the concerned authorities for a long time and Sri B. Anjaneyulu used to enquire me about his RPLI policy bond. I told him that after rectification of omissions if any in the proposal form, the policy will be issued by the Post Master General, Kurnool. Sri B. Anjaneyulu, the proposer died on 13-01-1999 without handing over the original receipt to BPM, Rythungar. (ii) THE ASPOs, Nandyal Sub Dn. (P. Ramachandraiah) instructed me to obtain and submit the original RPLI receipt issued by me in favour of Sri B. Anjaneyulu. THEn I approached Sri B. Anjaneyulu many a times to produce the RPLI receipt of the first premium, as it was required by the ASPOs in connection with the issue of RPLI policy bond. But the said Sri B. Anjaneyulu had never handed over the RPLI receipt no. 6 to me and hence it was not send to ASPOs. Nandyal. THE fact of not handing over the receipt by Sri B. Anjaneyulu. So, the issue of policy is delayed.

Mr. Murthy would argue that there was no reason for the deceased Anjaneyulu not to tender the original receipt of the premium if he had indeed been asked to do so because the fact of his having been issued the original receipt for Rs.208/- was not disputed. Secondly, not issuing the policy documents merely on the ground of non-availability or non-submission of the original receipt by the proposer was at all reasonable because the record of the Branch Post Office, including the office copy of the receipt of the premium, should have been enough to establish the fact of the proposer having paid the premium. Thirdly, if production of the original receipt was required, Anjaneyulu should have been informed in writing by the Branch Post Master that the policy document could not be issued until he tendered the original receipt of the premium. This was not done as would be clear from the affidavit of the Branch Post Master. On the other hand, Mr. Ram emphasises that the risk of life coverage would commence under the rules/regulations applicable to RPLI only on the acceptance of the proposal by the competent authority. In this case, the competent authority had raised objection regarding non-production of the original receipt of the premium. This objection had been conveyed duly to the Branch Post Master who, in turn, asked the proposer to submit the original receipt. As the proposer failed to do so, the policy document could not be issued and the risk could not commence before the death of the proposer. In such a situation, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in repudiating the claim of his nominee.

WE have carefully considered the material brought before us as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The insistence of the Postal Authorities on production of the original receipt of the premium paid by the proposer cannot be termed a reasonable requirement for issuing the policy documents. The receipt for the premium was admittedly issued by the Branch Post Master who would had definitely kept a office copy thereof. If the Post Master General, Kurnool, who was required to accept the RPLI proposal, had any doubts about the genuineness of the deposit of premium by the proposer, he could have asked the Branch Post Master concerned to furnish the office copy of the receipt. If the proposer were to tender his original receipt, he would have been left with no proof of having paid the premium. Mr. Sewa Ram has further argued that the proposer paid only one premium for the policy for which monthly premiums had to be paid. This is an unacceptable contention for the simple reason that Anjaneyulu was never advised to do so, even orally. On the other hand, as is the admitted position, Anenjayulu repeatedly enquired about the issuance and receipt of the policy document. This would show that the proposer assumed and for good reasons that his proposal had been accepted and there was only some unexplained official delay in sending him the policy document. The important point is that the Postal Authorities accepted the premium but did not inform the proposer about either rejection or acceptance of the proposal for over one and a half years, till the death of the proposer. The deficiency in service, is therefore, writ large in the conduct of the higher offices of the Department of Posts.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, while confirming the findings of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs/respondents, we feel that the interest of justice and equity in this case would be met only if the nominee of the deceased is paid the full amount of the policy, viz., Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death of the deceased till actual realisation. We also hope that in running the scheme of Rural Life INsurance, the Department of Posts would take into account the ground realities of rural INdia, frame rules and regulations which are transparent and equitable and also ensure that the basic terms & conditions of the policies and decisions regarding acceptance/rejection of the proposals are conveyed to the proposer within reasonable period of time and in words which are easily understood by the rural population.