Post Master, Main Post Office Bhattu Kalan, Tehsil And District Fatehabad Haryana vs Savitri Devi Widow Of Amar Singh

REVISION Petition no. 1482 of 2014 has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 713 of 2013.

THE brief facts of the case as per the respondents/ complainants are that the husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent no. 2, namely, Amar Singh had purchased an insurance policy no. HY 161986 US dated 09.03.2010 from petitioner no. 1, on depositing Rs.1050/ -. Thereafter, amount of Rs.6237/ -, after deducting Rs.63/ - as concession was deposited with the petitioners for the period April 2010 to September 2010, vide receipt no. A 1059. The next due amount was Rs.7570/ - for the period October 2010 to April 2011 which along with surcharge was deposited with the petitioners vide receipt no. 676 dated 07.03.2011. Husband of the respondent - Amar Singh died on 11.04.2011 and before his death, the said insurance policy was continuing as on 07.04.2011 and all the installments had already been deposited and the next installment was due in May 2011. Except the respondents, there is no other legal heir of the deceased Amar Singh, therefore, they were entitled for the insured amount of Rs.1,20,000/ -. The respondent had intimated about the death of Amar Singh to the petitioners and had also deposited all the requisite documents with them but despite that no insurance claim had been granted to the respondents. Vide letter no. LY/ HY 161986 US/ SC/ 6 dated 19.12.2011, the respondents have been intimated about the closing of the said case on account of lapsing of the policy on 01.04.2011. Respondents averred that the said policy had not lapsed because receipt no. 676 dated 07.04.2011 for payment of installment of Rs.7570/ - for the period from October 2010 to April 2011 along with surcharge to the tune of Rs.220/ - were deposited with the petitioners. The respondents got served a legal notice to the petitioners on 25.04.2012 requesting them to make the payment of insurance within 60 days but to no avail. Due to the act and conduct of the petitioners the respondents have suffered mental agony and harassment which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

THE petitioners/ opposite parties in their joint written statement have stated that the said policy no. HY 161986 in the name of late Amar Singh was not maintainable as the respondents have preferred a claim on a void and a lapsed policy. As per the terms of the contract, this policy was required to be converted it into a live policy under the heading revival of discontinued policy. The insured Amar Singh died on 11.04.2011, but before his death, the deceased had paid the premium for the period from October 2010 to April 2011 on void policy without getting it revived as required under Section 56 of RPLI Rules, 2011 and condition nos. 7 & 8 of the Terms of the contract given on the reverse of the policy. As per condition no. 5, of the terms of contract, the premium shall be paid in advance on the first day of each month. However, grace period is allowed up to the last working day of the month. Since, the insured had deposited premium from October 2010 to April 2011 on 07.04.2011, therefore, the said policy became void and lapsed on 01.04.2011 as per Rule 56 of RPLI Rules, 2011. The said policy was required to be revived for keeping it active. The petitioners had rightly rejected the claim as the same was claimed on a lapsed policy. Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioners. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (''the District Forum'') vide its order dated 30th August 2013 while allowing the complaint observed as under: "The plea taken by the OPs is not sustainable as on perusal of the Ex. C3 further reveals that the premium for the months from October 2011 to April 2011 has been paid with surcharge to the tune of Rs.220/ - meaning thereby that the said policy is not lapsed rather the OPs have charged the surcharge on account of not depositing the premium in time. It is also established on the case file that the next due premium was from May 2011 because the premium for the months from October 2010 to April 2011 had already been paid with surcharge. When the OPs have charged surcharge from the insured, therefore, it was their duty to get the policy revived, if required, before receiving the premium. Once, the OPs have received the premium with surcharge, therefore, the policy cannot be said to be void and inactive. The contentions put forth on behalf of the complainant have weight and they have been able to prove that they have suffered mental agony and harassment on account of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs by rejecting the legal claim".

For the reasons and finding recorded above, we accept the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay a sum of ?1,20,000/ - to the complainant along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/ - in lump sum in lieu of compensation to the complainants for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses".

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under: "7. The submission made is not tenable in view of Clause 7 of Terms of Contract (Annexure R -1), whereby in the event of a policy holder of a lapsed policy desiring automatic re -instatement of the policy within a period not later than six months or a period not later than 12 months from the date of first unpaid premium had become due in respect of such policies that have not completed 3 years, or in respect of such policies that have already completed 3 years from the date of acceptance respectively, the insured may deposit all the arrears of premium till the date of such payment along with interest thereon at the rates prescribed by Director General of Posts in the specified Post Office and informed the Chief Postmaster General. Indisputably the insurant had deposited all the arrears of permia within a period of six months from the date of the last premium paid by him that is October, 2010 because the arrears of permia were paid on 7th April, 2011. Since the appellants accepted the arrears of permia, the policy automatically gets revived.

In view of the above, the District Forum was justified in granting the sum assured to the respondents.

The appeal, is therefore, dismissed".

DISSATISFI ED by the order of the State Commission, the petitioners have filed this present revision petition before us.

WE have heard the counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the terms of the contract attached to the Postal Life Insurance Policy which reads as under: "5. Payment of premia: The premium shall be paid in advance on the first date of each month. However, grace period is allowed up to the last working day of the month.

Lapsing of policy: The policy shall be treated as lapsed in the case the policy holder fails to pay the premium/ premia that has/ have become due against his/ her policy within the period of grace in accordance with Rule 39 and 40 of POIF Rules as applicable.

Reinstatement of policies: In the event of a policy holder of a lapsed policy desiring automatic reinstatement of his/ her policy within a period not later than six months or a period not later than 12 months from the date of the first unpaid premium had become due in respect of such policies that have not completed three years, or in respect of such policies that have already completed three years from the date of acceptance respectively, he/ she may deposit all the arrears of premium/ premia till the date of such payment along with interest thereon at the rates prescribed by Director General of Posts in the specified post office and informed the Chief Postmaster General, to this effect through the said Post Office along with certificate of continued good health in the prescribed proforma to be signed by the insurant him/ herself and a certificate from his/ her employer certifying that the said insurant had not taken any leave on medical grounds during the said period reckoned from the date of the first unpaid premium had become due in respect of such policy up to the date of payment of arrears."

He argued that the policy had lapsed on 01.04.2011 due to non -payment of premia and had not been revived as per the prescribed procedure.

LEARNED counsel for the respondent, however stated that the premia for the period October 2010 to April 2011 was paid on 07.04.2011 and the petitioner had accepted the same without asking for any documentation and even stated that the next premium was due in May.

WE see from the record that clause no. 5 states that the premium should be paid in advance on the first day of each month. The Terms of contract, also goes on to say that grace period is allowed up to the last working day of the month. Premium for April 2011 was paid on 07.04.2011 and was well within the grace period. Hence, it is not known why the petitioners stated that the policy of the petitioner stood lapsed on 01.04.2011. Further, the premium had to be paid monthly the petitioner even earlier had accepted premia for six months at a time for the period April 2010 to September 2010. Further, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent''s husband before his death had paid the premia for the period October 2010 to April 2011 along with surcharge on 07.04.2011. This was well within six months and as such, it qualified for automatic reinstatement of his policy as per clause 7 of the terms of the contract. The petitioner cannot now take a stand that the policy needed to be reinstated by giving them a certificate of continued good health in the prescribed proforma as also certificate from his employer certifying that the said insurant had not taken any leave on medical ground during the period reckoned from the date of the first unpaid premium had become due. In the case of automatic reinstatement he did not to follow the prescribed procedure for revival of the discontinued policy. As such, we find that the State Commission and the District Forum were justified in granting the sum assured to the respondents.

THE Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed: "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

THUS , no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed with no order as to cost.