National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Post Master, Post Office Branch & 2 Ors. vs Shambhu Nath Seth on 13 July, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3346 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 11/04/2014 in Appeal No. 19/2013 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. POST MASTER, POST OFFICE BRANCH & 2 ORS. THROUGH ITS (THEN) SMAR BAHADUR SINGH, KARDHANA, SUB POST OFFICE-MIRJA MURAD, VARANASI U.P. 2. POST MASTER GENERAL, ALLAHABAD REGION, ALLAHABAD U.P. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, VARANASI WEST DEVISION VARANASI U.P. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHAMBHU NATH SETH S/O. SRI MATA PRASAD, R/O.VILLAGE-BASDHAURA, POST KARDHANA, PARGANA-KASWAAR RAJA, VARANASI U.P. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : DR. UDAY VEER SINGH For the Respondent : MR. PAWAN KUMAR RAY Dated : 13 Jul 2015 ORDER JUDGMENT JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/respondent submitted a proposal to the Post Office on 25.01.1996, seeking 'Term Insurance Policy B1' in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh for a period of ten years. According to the complainant, he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- on expiry of the term of the policy and was required to pay premium of Rs. 840/- per month. No medical check-up of the complainant was carried out, pursuant to the aforesaid proposal submitted by him. The petitioners, however, kept on accepting premium from him at @ Rs. 840/- per month for as many as three years and one month. The complainant was subjected to a medical check-up on 18.11.1998 and thereafter, the petitioners issued a policy dated 28.02.1999 to him. As per the said document, the policy was to mature on 14.02.2006 and the premium payable was Rs. 1,281/- per month. The date of proposal was given as 10.11.1998 in the aforesaid policy. The complainant, thereafter, kept on making payment of Rs. 1,281/- per month and on expiry of the term of the said policy, a sum of Rs. 1,36,281/- was paid to him. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum, seeking payment of the balance amount alongwith compensation etc.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that on deposit of the first premium of Rs. 840/-, the complainant was asked by the concerned Post Office to present himself for medical check-up, since such a check-up was necessary under Rural Post Office Insurance Scheme, 1995, but he did not turn up for the said medical check-up. Thereafter, the proposal was accepted on 28.02.1999, fixing the period of the policy at seven years and the premium was increased to Rs. 1,281/- per month. According to the petitioners, the complainant was paid Rs. 1,36,617/- as per the rules, taking the term of the policy to be seven years. The aforesaid amount included the bonus which had occurred during the aforesaid period of seven years. The District Forum, vide its order dated 07.11.2012, directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 49,640/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum. The complainant was also awarded compensation quantified at Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.
3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.04.2014, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
4. As noted earlier, the case of the petitioners is that within a day or two of deposit of the first premium of Rs. 840/-, the complainant was asked to present himself for medical check-up. However, there is no document evidencing such a request to the complainant. The petitioners, being Govt. departments, had there been such a request to the complainant, it would have been in writing and an office copy of the said request would have been available in the record of the concerned Post Office. In the absence of such a record, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that the complainant was asked by them, within a few days of submitting the proposal, to present himself for medical check-up.
5. It is an admitted position that the petitioners kept on accepting monthly premium of Rs. 840/- from the complainant for more than three years. If medical check-up was mandatory under the Scheme as is claimed by the petitioners, they should not have accepted premium from the complainant till he presented himself for such a medical check-up. By accepting the premium @ Rs. 840/- per month for more than three years, the petitioners gave an impression to the complainant, who is otherwise an uneducated person, that his proposal for issuance of a ten year policy at the premium of Rs. 840/- per month had been accepted. Since the complainant kept on making premium at the aforesaid rate to the petitioners for more than three years on the basis of such an impression given to him, the petitioners are estopped from claiming that the proposal for a policy of ten years at the premium of Rs. 840/- per month was not accepted by them.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant accepted the reduction of the tenure of the policy to seven years and increase in the premium from Rs. 840/- per month to Rs. 1,281/- per month, as is evident from his paying premium @ Rs. 1,281/- per month for about seven years and he cannot be allowed to say that he had not accepted the reduction of the tenure of the policy from ten years to seven years and increase in the premium from Rs. 840/- per month to Rs. 1,281/- per month. The case of the complainant, who is present before us, in this regard is that he was assured by the officials of the Post Office that there would be no reduction in the amount payable to him, in case he kept on making payment for seven years as per the increased premium of Rs. 1,281/- per month and that is why he did not protest against reduction in the term of the policy bond issued to him. Considering that the complainant is an uneducated person, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation given by him. In accepting the said explanation, we also take note of the fact that no consent from the complainant was taken by the petitioners either for reducing the term of the policy to seven years or to increase the premium from Rs. 840/- per month to Rs. 1,281/- per month.
7. The petitioners, in our view, were clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainant, since firstly they neither asked him to undergo a medical check-up, pursuant to the proposal submitted by him, nor did they issue any policy bond to him, despite accepting premium from him for more than three years. They were also deficient in rendering services to him since they unilaterally reduced the term of the policy from ten years to seven years and increased the premium from Rs. 840/- per month to Rs. 1,281/- per month. The complainant, who is an illiterate person, had no good reason to disbelieve the representation made to him by the officials of the Post Office, to the effect that there would be no loss to him if, on account of reduction in the term of the policy provided, he continued to pay revised premium @ Rs. 1,281/- per month.
8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this revision petition by directing the petitioners to pay to the complainant, the difference between the amount which they would have paid to him, had they issued a policy bond of ten years at the premium of Rs. 840/- per month w.e.f. 25.01.1996 and the amount which they actually paid to the complainant. The aforesaid differential amount shall be calculated and paid to the complainant within six weeks from today. In case this order is complied within six weeks, the petitioners need not pay any interest to the complainant on the aforesaid amount. If, however, there is a default in payment of the aforesaid amount, the interest shall become payable on that amount @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. The direction of the fora below for payment of cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 2,000/- remains unaltered, but no compensation needs to be paid to the complainant, if payment in terms of this order be made within six weeks.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER