SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES vs Navin Kumar Singh

THIS Revision Petition by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharsa is directed against the order, dated 28.02.2014, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.259 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 28.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saharsa (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint no.44 of 2011, whereby the Petitioner herein was directed to pay the assured amount of Rs.1 Lac to the Complainant on the death of his mother late Smt. Bimla Devi. The District Forum had also awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/ - on account of undue harassment and legal expenses incurred by the Complainant.

BRIEFLY stated, the material facts giving rise to the Revision Petition are that on 22.03.2010 the mother of the Complainant had obtained a Rural Postal Insurance Policy for an assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/ -. In the proposal form, her date of birth was mentioned as 16.07.1961, which was supported by a photo Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India. Unfortunately, the insured passed away on 30.01.2011. On her demise, the Complainant preferred claim for the assured sum. However, the claim was repudiated by the Postal Authorities on the ground that at the time of obtaining the policy she was more than 45 years of age and therefore, she was not eligible for the policy. It was stated that the proof of age furnished by her was not a valid standard age proof as per notification issued in the year 1994.

AGGRIEVED by the refusal to entertain the claim, the Complaint, claiming the assured sum along with a sum of Rs.75,000/ - as loss and Rs.15,000/ - towards mental and physical harassment came to be filed. On consideration of the material on record, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the aforestated directions. Dissatisfied with the said order, the Petitioner preferred Appeal with the State Commission. As noted above, the State Commission has affirmed the order of the District Forum, observing thus: "Upon considering the submission of the appellant, on perusal of the material brought on the record as also the discussions and the findings recorded in the order of the District Forum assailed by the appellant, it would appear that the only question of age was in consideration on which the claim was not being paid. There is nothing on the record that the appellant ever communicated the deceased rejecting the proposal on the ground of age. It is not in dispute that the deceased had supported her age on the basis of the Voter Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India whereas on the part of the appellant, nothing was done to verify the age even though as per the relevant instructions of the Postal Department, it was open to the Department to make enquiry regarding the age or any other information relevant for acceptance of the proposal, nothing was done except taking the proposal and receiving the premium said to be provisional. In case, the proposal of the deceased was not acceptable for any reason whatsoever after accepting the premium, it was incumbent upon the concerned Postal Authorities to communicate the insured soon thereafter and now after the death, such plea on the part of the Postal Authorities in not making the payment and litigating the matter by filing appeal is further deprecatable."

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition is devoid of any substance and is a sheer wastage of public money and valuable Judicial time. As noted above, the policy was obtained by the insured on 22.03.2010, for which a premium of Rs.921/ - was accepted by the Petitioner. At no point of time the Postal Authorities had either rejected the proof of age or had asked for an additional proof of her age. The insured expired on 30.01.2011 after almost nine months of obtaining the policy. Having kept quiet for all these months, the Petitioner was estopped from raking up the issue of age after the death of the insured. Such a conduct on the part of the Petitioner is reprehensible and deserves to be outrightly rejected.

WE are in complete agreement with the reasoning of both the Fora below and hence, do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.