N RAJA REDDY Vs. BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner /Complainant against the impugned order dated 19.06.2013 passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.108 of 2012.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per Respondent/Complainant are that he insured his life with the Respondents No. and /Opposite Parties No. and and took six policies, the details of which are as follows: It has been alleged that the Petitioner was paying the premium amounts for all the six policies every month from his salary through his employer i.e. Respondent No./OP No. by making an authorisation to Respondent No.. Due to ill health, the Petitioner applied for leave in the year 009 and went to Vijaya Hospital, Chennai for a heart operation and though the Respondent No. recovered the premium from the Petitioner's salary for the said policies, the same were not forwarded to the Respondent No.. Subsequently, the Respondent No. sent the amount by D.D. on 8-8-009 for a sum of Rs.,80/- for the premium amount with a covering letter, which was returned on -8-009 by the Respondent No. stating that the policies had lapsed. Thereafter, another DD dated 9-8-009 for Rs.9,98/- was sent which was again returned. The Petitioner was informed that for revival of his policies he was to send the medical reports from the concerned doctors. He sent the health declaration, ECG, FBBS issued by LIC authorities. Thereafter, the Petitioner was again asked to send the report from Dr. Gupta, M.D. who is a physician of LIC and the same was sent on -0-009. The Respondent No. intimated to him to send special Blood sugar test, urine test, SBT-, haemogram test, Licidogram test, Blood sugar tolerance report. The Petitioner obtained all these test reports and sent them on --00 but still the Respondents No.& did not renew the policies. Respondent No., though they had deducted the premiums from his salary did not send them in time to the Respondents No. and . Therefore, there was negligence on behalf of all Respondents and the Petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs; directing the respondents jointly and severally to renew the policies bearing Nos.) 0, ) 070,) 8970, ) 807977, ) 89778, and ) 80890, after taking the premium amounts from the rd respondent which was deducted from the salary of the complainant.directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.0,000/- towards damages and for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant in not reviving the policies without reasonable time.directing the respondents to pay the costs of the complaint to the complaint; andpass such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

(3.) The Respondent No.2 filed its written version which was also adopted by Respondent No. 1 admitting the issuance of the six policies but denied for want of knowledge that the Petitioner went on leave for one year in the year 2009 but admitted that the premium amounts were not received by Respondent No.1 from the employer-Respondent No.3 from the month of September, 2008. They admitted that they had returned the D.D. sent by Respondent No.3 as the policies had already lapsed. The Respondent No.2 also admitted that they had asked the Petitioner to send the medical reports of 2D, echo and CTMT and having received the same, their Mumbai office had stated that the Petitioner's case was not fit for revival of policies and hence they had declined to renew the policies as per the conditions incorporated in the policies under the heading "Revival of Discontinued Policies." Thus, as the Respondents reserved the right to accept or decline the revival of discontinued policy, there was no deficiency in service on their part.