M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) Brief facts, leading to this appeal: The complainant?s /respondent?s son, by name Samidurai, had taken Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy, hereinafter called RPLI, from the 1st opposite party, for a sum of RS.1 lakh, w.e.f. 10.3.2002, paying the first premium of Rs.220/-, wherein he had nominated the complainants, as his nominee. Unfortunately, the policy holder died on 9.4.2003, due to sudden heart attack. After his death, based upon the policy, the complainant approached the opposite parties, lodging the claim, furnishing necessary documents also, claiming the sum assured for which there was no proper answer, and infact they have acted against law, causing deficiency of service, practicing unfair trade practice, which had caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore the complainants are constrained to move the consumer forum, being the consumers, seeking the sum assured, as well as compensation of Rs.50000/-, with cost.
(3.) The opposite parties/ appellants, admitting the relationship of the complainants, with Samidurai, who had credited a sum of RS.220/- towards provisional premium, on 10.3.2003, resisted the case interalia contending that before the acceptance of the policy, by the Post Master General on 10.6.2003, the proponent died on 9.4.2003, and therefore as per Rule 22 of POIF Rules, the policy itself is not valid, that on that basis alone, when a claim was lodged, the same was repudiated/negatived, which cannot be termed as negligence, or deficiency, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, as they have not committed any deficiency.;