To
Dear Madam/Sir

I SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
Want to submit some facts
before your goodself …..
1 ) That my wife late Rashmi jain who was associate professor in Delhi UNIVERSITY (VIVEKANADA COLLEGE ,VIVEK VIHAR )had taken the post office PLI policy no …DL-121227-CS dated 24.3.2011…………………………She expired on 24.4.2013 .The postal authorities have confiscated all hard earned savings on wrong and illegal grounds ..and hence this appeal…EXHIBIT 001


2 . the medical officer of Post office checked and certified that Rashmi Jain was medically FIT and recommended the policy as given at item no 20 ,page 4 of policy ……………………..EXHIBIT NO 002
=================================================================
3.policy was taken in 2011..and premiums were paid in 2011,2012 and 2013.
Rashmi had no serious illness/ nor any major operations in previous 3 years 2008-2011 prior to taking policy and mentioned same as stipulated in policy item no 16 (c) of said policy document.……………… …………………..EXHIBIT NO 002
.


====================================


4. PLS REFER TO The letter no L1/DL-121227 CS/DC/PA-VI dated 30.6.14 from postal authorities…………….…………………..EXHIBIT NO 004………………
IN THIS LETTER The postal official stated that Rashmi had a heart attack during this 3 days period FROM 8.9.11 to 11.9.11 .This fact is totally wrong and there is nothing to show and prove this fact on records THAT SHE HAD A HEART ATTACK FROM 8.9.11 to 11.9.11 as alleged .in fact it has been just concocted to confiscate our hard earned savings and harass and extort from us may be .
================================================================
5. in 2013 Rashmi developed chest pain/discomfort and was taken to Gangaram hospital WHEN the heart bypass treatment was successfully done but she later developed problems and again rushed to hospital but could not survive and expired on 24.4.2013.


===================================================================
6
Sir our MAIN plea IS that THAT PLI is not insurance policy as is also confirmed by mail dated 13.3.2015 6.42 pm from IRDA(INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ) that PLI is not an insurance policy regulated by them………………………………….…………………..EXHIBIT NO 006
If it was an insurance policy it must have been regulated under IRDA or any other regulator as all insurance policy HAVE TO BE regulated by some bodies……………………therefore it should be inferred that it is an investment policy with insurance coverage as additional benefit.Then how can they forfeit our invested money after death of investor…it is unfair trade practices.



It is also prayed that PLI should be taken an investment policy with added advantage of insurance as secondary part as added advantage.
PLI IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR govt/psu employees who do not have a pension after retirement more so the misery adds to family dependents if employee dies prematurely and the hard earned deposit of govt employee is forfeite .Thus we came to the hon court for remedy .
=============================================================
7 Honurable court may also like to see letter PLI/DL-121227-CS /2015-16 dated 2.2.16 CITING THE RULES OF 2011 for rejecting our claim.our contention is when policy was taken on 24.3.2011 it cannot be governed by any later rules .
Also sir,pls have a look at rule 56(2)(b)(v) of 2011 which they have quoted to reject our claim…..this rule talks about lapsing of policies within thirty six months and our policy is never a lapsed policy ,then how this rule and clause is applicable in our case.there appears a gross negligence in handling our case . …………EXHIBIT NO 007 r/w EXHIBIT NO 008
===================================================================

8 It is thus Prayed as under……
a)The postal authorities PLEASE be asked to clarify their intention in wrongly interpreting the medical certificate dated 11.9.08………..pin pointing the responsibility for wrong interpretation as given in letter marked as EXHIBIT NO 004.
Also for rejecting the case they have quoted rules of 2011 , post policy date which should not apply for a policy accepted much earlier in 2011.
Not only that ,the postal rule56 of 2011 itself is applicable only for lapsed policy and wrongly quoted in our case since our policy is not lapsed policy …..EXHIBITS 007 R/W exhibit 008.
This gross ir responsible attitude of postal official has put me ,the spouce of deceased under great mental agony …who is now himself retired ,and has a teenaged lonely daughter to support.
it may be added that the fact that the spouce and the teenaged daughter left behind have no regular income source /no pension except the interest income on funds got after retirement and cannot sustain the huge loss of hard earned money invested in this PLI scheme.
b)it is also prayed that postal authorities are made to pay our investment made in this scheme along with interest and consequential damages for mental agony undergoing …. within 15 days .
(The full insurance benefit associated in the policy is left to the learned court in view of the facts that Rashmi did have any hospitalization /major illness as required under policy document as put forth vide exhibit no 005…..However we do not claim any insurance benefit if that is due or noton untimely death of Rashmi we only did this scheme as investment with understanding that if the employees dies he may get the death compensation..
c )it is also prayed that since postal authorities has no insurance regulator to such as IRDA (INSURANCE REGULATOR AUTHORITY as put up vide exhibit no 006….to prevent future HARRASSMENT /arbritrariness to other govt/public sector employees ..postal authorities should be prevented FROM selling it as insurance policy TO OTHER CUSTOMERS and should sell as investment instrument otherwise …it amounts to a case of unfair trade practices .(insurance premiums of benefits of crores is of order of few thousands a year….and in our case for a policy of 10 years we are investing about a lakh per year …that much amount cannot be called as insurance premium and forfeited ……
(IF ONE WANTS TO DO INSURANCE OF 1.0 CRORES THAT IS BEING DONE AT A PREMIUM OF JUST FEW THOUSANDS IN A YEAR FOR 10 YEARS TERM.....SO WE DO NOT TAKE PLI for insurance reasons and intentions and so at least our savings should be returned with interest .
kindly order as deemed fit in view of genuine points raised in particular and also larger interest to protect consumers against ills of this unregulated policy .
Submitted for order please with prayed as above .
S k jain (Retired)
Spouse of deceased policy holder
==================================================================