N VENKATESWALU Vs. BRANCH POST MASTER RYTUNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.11.2006 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 270/2004. By this order, the State Commission held as under:

(2.) The petitioner (who was the appellant before the State Commission) was the complainant before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kurnool (in short "the District Forum"). He filed a consumer complaint in his capacity of the nominee of a Rural Postal Life Insurance (RPLI) policy, taken by one B. Anjaneyulu for Rs.50,000. Anjaneyulu had filled in the policy proposal form and also deposited the first premium of Rs.208 on 28.3.1997 with the Branch Post Master, Nandyal, to whom he had submitted the RPLI proposal. The case of the complainant was that though the Anjaneyulu continued to make repeated inquiries with the Branch Post Master about issuance of the policy document, he did not get any satisfactory reply. On 13.1.1999, the life assured died in an accident but the opposite parties (OPs) did not pay the policy amount to the complainant, who was the nominee, despite repeated requests. Alleging deficiency in service on this account, the complainant claimed the policy amount with accrued interest, Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as cost.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the OPs. They admitted that the deceased Anjaneyulu had submitted a proposal for RPLI policy for Rs. 50,000 and also paid Rs. 208 towards the provisional premium on 28.3.1997. However, the principal defence of the OPs was that the said proposal had not been accepted and policy documents had not been issued by the competent authority. The coverage of the risk of the life of the proposer would not commence, under the rules governing RPLI policies, till acceptance of the proposal by the competent authority. In this case, the OPs had returned the proposal (along with several other such proposals) to the Branch Post Office with the objection that the original receipt towards payment of the premium should be sent along with the proposal. As Anjaneyulu did not comply with this requirement till his death, the policy proposal remained without approval and hence there was no risk coverage for his life. The complainant was, therefore, not entitled to any payment on this ground.