This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Saurashtra Gramin Bank against the order dated 28.06.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.1297 of 2013.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Insurance Company had launched a scheme of insurance i.e. Group Personal Accident Bima Yojna, for account holders of petitioner Bank.  Against the premium of Rs.100/- the Insurance Company had offered compensation of Rs.5 lacs to the policy holder.  It is the case of petitioner that on 21.7.2008, the deceased husband of the complainant took the form from the branch, however, did not submit the same prior to 09.08.2008.  On 28.07.2009, the deceased visited the bank but without submitting the form took the same back with him to show it to some of his relative.  On 01.08.2008, the account holder (i.e. husband of the complainant) met with an accident.  It is alleged by the petitioner that on 09.08.2008, after almost eight days of the said accident, the form was submitted.  However, since it was submitted after office hours on 09.08.2008 which was a Saturday, the amount of Rs.100/- towards premium could not be debited from the account holder’s account.  On 11.08.2008, the petitioner bank was intimated of the death of the account holder.  Thus, in the given circumstances i.e. after the death of the account holder, the insurance cover could not be extended/granted to him.  It is the case of the respondent No.1/complainant that her husband had filled and submitted the form under this scheme on 21.7.2008 with the petitioner bank along with two other account holders namely, Rasik Gordhanbhai Dobariya and Harjibhai Bhanderi who also submitted the form on the same date.  The applications were listed at Serial No.351, 352 & 353.  Application No.352 was of the husband of the complainant.  However, the bank did not forward these applications to the Insurance Company in time.  Meanwhile, the husband of the complainant met with an accident on 01.08.2008 and later on he died on 10.8.2008.  The intimation of death was given to the bank on 11.8.2008.  As against this, the claim of the petitioner/ opposite party bank is that the husband of the complainant came to the bank on 21.7.2008 and filled the form, but did not deposit it the same day and took it back that he will consult one of his relatives.  Later on, the form was submitted on 09.08.2008 in the evening so that the bank could not deduct Rs.100/- premium for the policy from the account of the account holder.  The bank was to send the form to the Insurance Company on 11.08.2008, however, material information of death of the husband of the complainant was received by the bank and therefore, no further action was taken on application form. 

3.      The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar (in short ‘the District Forum’) being consumer complaint no.279 of 2009.  The complaint was resisted by the opposite party bank on same grounds as mentioned above.  The District Forum, however allowed the complaint as under:-

“The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed.

The respondent No.1 Saurashtra Gramin Bank Jamngar Gramin bank Dhutarpur branch is hereby directed to pay Rs.5 lacs with the interest @ of 6% from 20.8.2009 and Rs.2000/- towards shock and suffering and Rs.1500/- towards cost.”

4.      Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party bank preferred an appeal bearing No.1297 of 2013 before the State Commission, which was dismissed by order dated 28.6.2013 passed by the State Commission. 

5.      Hence the present revision petition.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the husband of the complainant had visited the bank branch on 28.7.2008 and filled up the form.  However, he did not deposit the same saying that he would consult one of his relatives.  The form was later on deposited by relatives on 09.08.2008.  It was registered at Serial No.358 after office hours.  Again this form was taken up on 11.08.2008 and before that the husband of the complainant died on 10.8.2008, therefore, neither Rs.100/- was deducted from the account of the husband of the complainant nor the form was forwarded to the Insurance Company.  It was argued that as no premium was paid to the Insurance Company, there is no question of any policy and therefore, complainant is not entitled to any policy/insurance amount.  Moreover, it was argued that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of the consumer in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because no consideration (even the premium) has been paid by the  husband of the complainant.

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there are disputed questions of fact and law in the present matter as even the date of filing of the application form is disputed and therefore, complaint is not maintainable before a consumer forum.  The remedy for the complainant is available within the fold of civil court.

8.      It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no policy contract and hence there is no question of any insurance claim.  Moreover, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner bank as complete form was received only on 09.8.2008 and the same could not be sent to Insurance Company prior to the death of the account holder/husband of the complainant.  Even the premium amount of Rs.100/- was not collected from the deceased.   It was further stated by the learned counsel that even if some deficiency is found against the petitioner bank by believing the version of the complainant, then also, the liability of the insurance cannot be fastened to the petitioner bank, because there was no contract of insurance between petitioner bank and the deceased.  The petitioner bank is not in the business of insurance and it cannot be ordered to pay the insurance amount even if found deficient in any aspect. 

9.      It was argued that if certain deficiency is observed on the part of the petitioner bank the complainant may be entitled for some compensation, but not for the policy amount.

10.    On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant stated that in the written statement, opposite party has stated that father of the complainant submitted the form on 09.08.2008.  It would mean that the father-in-law of the deceased had submitted the form whereas he had died in 2005 itself.  Thus, averments made by the opposite party bank in the written statement are wrong.  The fact is that three persons namely, Rasikbhai Gordhanhai Dobariya, Haribhai Hirabhai Bhanderi  and the husband of the complaint submitted the form on the same date i.e. 21.7.2008.  It was registered at serial Nos.351, 352 and 353.  Thus, the story created by the bank that the form was deposited at serial No.358 on 9.8.2008 is totally wrong.  The bank has not denied that other two persons did not submit their forms on 21.07.2008.  Even their forms were not sent to the Insurance Company in time, though were sent after 11.08.2008.  Thus, there was clear lethargic attitude on the part of the bank in sending forms to the Insurance Company.  The bank has created story that the proposal form was submitted on 09.08.2008 because otherwise the bank would be exposed to their deficiency for not sending the application form to the Insurance Company within a reasonable time, therefore, the orders of the fora below are correct and do not require any interference from this Commission.

11.    It was further argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant that both the fora below have given concurrent finding and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited against the concurrent finding on facts given by the fora below. Both the fora below have found the deficiency on the part of the petitioner bank that the petitioner bank did not act on the application submitted by the husband of the complainant and therefore, the policy could not be obtained within time and accordingly the petitioner bank is liable to pay the policy amount.

12.    Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Insurance Company stated that they are only a proforma party as no premium was received from the deceased and therefore, there was no question of any coverage under the scheme for the husband of the complainant.  Accordingly, there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent No.2.

13.    I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.

14.    During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner bank admitted that no receipt was given to any person depositing the application form.  The learned counsel for the complainant also admitted that no receipt was given to the deceased while depositing the application form.  Moreover, the petitioner bank has not explained the details of application form mentioned at serial No.352.  These things strengthen the case of the complainant that the form was filed on 21.7.2008 and not on 09.8.2008.  If the petitioner bank was not following the practice of giving receipt of the deposit of the application form to any applicant, this itself is unfair trade practice as the applicant will not have any proof of the deposit. 

15.    It is true that petitioner bank is not in the insurance business, however, they were acting as agent of the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 for collecting the application form as well as for realising the premium.  As the premium amount was not deducted from the bank account of the deceased and the same was not paid to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is not liable in any manner in the present case.

16.    In the present case, it is to be seen that the contract of insurance was not complete as neither the premium was paid nor the policy was issued, though, the application was filed with the petitioner bank which acted as an agent.  If the contract of the policy is not complete, clearly the proposer is not entitled to get any benefit under the policy as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba, (1984) 2 SCC, 719, wherein it has been observed that delay in approving the proposal of insurance does not vitiate the terms and conditions of the policy.

17.    In the present case, the deficiency on the part of the petitioner bank is proved for not deducting the premium in time and for not sending application to the Insurance Company for the insurance of the deceased.  The deficiency remains the same whether the policy amount was Rs.5,00,000/- or something else.  The complainant is not entitled to any policy amount in the present case, but the complainant is definitely entitled to a compensation for the deficiency on the post of the petitioner bank in not forwarding the application form of the husband of the complainant to the Insurance company in time thereby depriving the complainant of the benefit under the policy, otherwise the death of the husband of the complainant would have been covered under the policy.  In these circumstances and legal position, I deem it appropriate to allow a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner bank instead of Rs.5 lakhs as ordered by the fora below.  With this modification the order of the District Forum is upheld.  Order of the State Commission shall also stand modified accordingly.  This order be complied by the petitioner bank within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.  No order as to costs for this revision petition.