Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Assistant Director (R.P.L.I.) andAnr. – Petitioners
versus
Vithal Kisan Khamkar – Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2010 of 2016 with
1A/6137/2016 (Stay)
(Against the Order dated 1/04/2016 in Appeal No. 370/2015 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 3.2.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Revision – Admitted mistake – Deficiency of Service – Acceptance of premiums on Lapsed Policy – The act of the Post Office officials and their omissions clearly amounts to a deficiency on their part – The mistake as admitted gives rise to a tort as also the principle of vicarious liability. The mistake is not pardonable, and is also unreasonable as per the own statement of Mr. More. The act of a public servant like a Branch Post Master, in the present case, is admittedly an outcome of a mistake and negligence, and therefore it will be difficult to extend immunity to such acts in a claim arising out of an adverse impact on an investor in a beneficial policy of the Postal Department. Consequently, the Postal Department would be liable even otherwise on the aforesaid principles and consequently for this additional reason as well, Commission held that the liability of deficiency fixed on the Petitioners by the Fora below on the unique facts of this case is justified – The Branch Post Master was under a duty and an obligation not to accept premiums/installments in a lapsed policy, yet he has done it and has even accepted his mistake with a rider that he shall not commit it in future – There is no deliberate contribution to the default by the Complainant who innocently ignorant of the consequences made the deposits that were accepted – The breach by the Post Master is therefore an actionable wrong in the background that the payments were admittedly received as against a policy giving an impression of the continuity of the policy which the Respondent/Complainant can legitimately be presumed to have understood as a continuance of his policy. The own action of the Branch Post Master therefore confirmed this expectation of the Respondent/Complainant – On facts, order modified. [Paras 30 to 36].
Result: Petition disposed off.
ORDER
The Postal Department through the Assistant Director (RPLI), the Office of the Post Master, Pune Division, has come up in this Revision Petition assailing the order of the State Commission dated 1.4.2016, SCDRC, Mumbaiat Aurangabad whereby the order of the DCDRC Ahmednagar dated 19.3.2015 has been affirmed. CC/349/2013 had been filed by the Respondent/Complainant that was allowed by the District Commission and the appeal filed by the Petitioners being FA/370/2015 was dismissed as a result whereof the petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions.
2. Vide order dated 2.12.2016, an interim protection was given to the Petitioners provided the entire awarded amount was deposited with the District Forum. Notices were issued to the Respondent who sént a letter that was recorded in the order dated 13.4.2017. A reply was also filed in this Revision Petition. No lawyer had appeared on behalf of the Respondent and the case was adjourned from time to time for hearing during the Pandemic. The matter stood adjourned, where after information was sent to the Respondent but none appeared. Accordingly, the matter was finally heard on 14.1.2025 in the personal absence the Respondent taking into account his letter as well as the reply and written submissions submitted by him.
3. The dispute relates to Rural Postal Life Insurance Coverage Policy (Suvidha Jeevan Bima Policy) for a sum assured of Rs. 3 lakhs in the name of the wife of the Complainant, late Smt. Sushila Vitthal Khamkar. The policy holder Smt. Sushila died on 9.10.2011. The Respondent/Complainant filed his claim contending that he has been making payments towards the installments and since the Petitioners themselves had accepted the payments, they cannot take recourse to any technical rule for denying the entitlement of the Respondent/Complainant.
4. The policy was issued on 25.2.2010 with a premium of Rs. 2,160 to be paid on a quarterly basis on the insured sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. The claim was submitted on 29.6.2012 and an order was issued on 18.7.2613 intimating the Complainant that he was entitled only to a refund of Rs. 8,896 paid towards the installments as the policy had lapsed due to non-payment of premium within time and remained unpaid within six months from the first day of the month which the premium had become due.
5. Aggrieved, the Respondent/Complainant filed CC/349/2013 and the District Commission allowed the complaint. The Respondent/Complainant alleged that he had not been informed about the rules of the revival of the policy nor was he issued any notice in this regard that the policy would lapse and on the other hand the premiums came to be accepted by the Petitioner. This deficiency and negligence is no fault of the Respondent/Complainant as they had been paying the premium as instructed by the post office officials. The acceptance of the premium is stamped by the concerned post office.
6. Consequently, the District Commission came to the conclusion that the Respondent/Complainant cannot be denied the benefits under the policy as the life assured had succumbed to death during the duration of the policy. There was no communication about the cancellation of the policy and on the other hand the installments had been accepted by the post office without placing any condition. The District Commission therefore held that the policy was continuing and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,91,104 after deducting the refunded amount within 30 days failing which the Petitioners were to pay 6% interest per annum with effect from 24.9.2013 till its full realization. Rs. 2,000 was awarded for mental agony and Rs. 3,000 towards litigation cost.
7. The Petitioners filed an appeal assailing the said order of the District Commission dated 19.3.2015 contending that the policy premiums/installments had not been regularly deposited and therefore the policy had lapsed. The Respondent/Complainant also did not apply for revival of the policy in terms of the terms and conditions and
(1) Vicarious liability – The mistake as admitted gives rise to a tort as also the principle of vicarious liability.(2) Actionable wrong – The breach by the Post Master is therefore an actionable wro....
Inactive Policy – If a policy is not active, the claim for the Accident Benefit is not payable to the complainants as per the terms outlined in the insurance contract.
An insurance policy lapses if the premium is not paid within the grace period; revivals after the insured's death are impermissible under contract terms.
A lapsed insurance policy cannot be revived post-death, and the Insurance Ombudsman lacks authority to bypass contract terms based on equity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
