State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Manager, Postal Life Insurance, ... vs Smt. Mohani Devi Wife Of Late Ram Kumar ... on 30 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.729 of 2011 Date of Institution: 31.05.2011 Date of Decision: 30.08.2012 1. The Manager, Postal Life Insurance, Main Post Office, Hisar, Tehsil and District, Hisar. 2. Deputy Divisional Manager, Postal Life Insurance, Head Post Office, Ambala-133001 on Chief Postmaster, General Haryana Circle, Ambala-133001 District Ambala (Haryana). Appellants (Ops) Versus Smt. Mohani Devi wife of late Ram Kumar son of Udey Ram, resident of VPO Sandol, Tehsil and District Hisar. Respondent BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri G.C. Babbar, Advocate for appellants. Shri Ashok Arora, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Hisar whereby complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was accepted by granting following relief:-
..The respondents are hereby directed to pay the claim amount payable under the policy in question and further to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant as litigation expenses. Order of this forum be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order of this Forum; failing which the respondents will pay interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that Ram Kumar had purchased the RPLI Policy from the appellants-opposite parties on 25.02.2006 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- at a monthly premium of Rs.363/- which was to be matured on 30.03.2018. The policy holder deposited the premium from February, 2006 to September, 2006 and thereafter deposited the premium on 19.02.2008. Ram Kumar died on 21.02.2008. The complainant being the nominee of the deceased submitted claim with the opposite parties with respect of the insurable benefits but the same was denied on the ground that the policy holder had not complied the terms and conditions of the contract laid down at Sr. No.7 and
8. The deceased policy holder was required to produce a certificate from an authorised Medical Examiner certifying the life assured as insurable having regarding to the insurance. But the deceased policy neither applied for revival of his policy in the light of the terms and conditions of the contract nor the competent authority i.e. Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Circle, Ambala had permitted any revival. Thus, the policy was found void and order for refund of irregular deposited amount on 19.02.2008 by the deceased policy holder were issued by the competent authority on 2.7.2009. Challenging the repudiation of her claim, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein they justified repudiation of complainants claim on the ground stated in the preceding para of this order and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the policy of the deceased stood lapsed under Rule 39 and 40 of POIF Rules and as per clause 6 of the policy, which reads as under:-
Clause 6: 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 & 40 of POIF Rules as applicable.
Learned counsel for the appellants further referred to Clause 8 of the policy reproduced as under:-
REVIVAL OF DISCONTINUED POLICIES: In the case of such policies which have lapsed and are time barred for automatic re-instalment, the policy holder may apply for revival of his/her policy to the Chief Postmaster General before the policy has matured subject to payment of all the arrears of premia with interest thereon and further subject to production of a certificate from an Authorized Medical Examiner certifying that the life assured is insurable having regard to the insurants health and habits and of evidence to show that there has been no change in his/her personal or family history or his/her occupation as also a certificate from his/her employer, if employed; certifying that the policy holder has not taken any leave on medical ground during that last one year; or during the entire period of service or from the date the first unpaid premium had become due; whichever is the least. The policy shall not be treated as revived unless the Chief Postmaster General, Haryana circle. The Mall, Ambala Cantt has satisfied himself and has permitted such revival in writing.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-complainant it is contended that since the premium was deposited by the complainant before his death and therefore the appellant-opposite party cannot take the plea that the policy had not been revived.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the life assured had revived the policy before his death in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. Admittedly, the policy holder-deceased had deposited 17 instalments of the premium on 19.02.2008 i.e. two days before his death but without getting the policy revive and without producing any medical certificate. Thus, the revival of the policy was an illegal and the same cannot be termed as a genuine revival of the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per settled principle of law no relief can be granted beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any insurable benefits. District Forum has failed to appreciate this aspect of the case, hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
As a sequel to our aforesaid discussion we feel that the order passed by the District Forum has no leg to stand in view of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 30.08.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member