FA.No.981/2007 AGAINST C.C.No.94/2006  DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR

Between:

State Bank of India Life Insurance

Company Ltd., Turner Morrison

Building, GN Vaidyamarg Fort,

Mumbai-400023.                                                                                                         Appellant/

                                                                                                                                      Opp.party No.3

                   A N D

1. Konduri Arun Kumar, S/o.late K.Maruthi

    R/o.H.No.8-4-523, Thirumalnagar,

    Karimnagar.                                                                                                              Respondent/

                                                                                                                                      Complainant

2. Manager, S.B.H., Rampur Branch,

    Karimnagar.

3. Asst.General Manager, S.B.H., Thukkarao

    Complex, Karimnagar..                                                                                            Respondents/

                                                                                                                             Opposite parties 1 & 2

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Karra Srinivas

Counsel for the Respondent:-Respondent served.

QUORUM:      SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

&

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order( Per Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***

            This is an appeal filed by the opposite party No.3, insurance company, assailing the order of the District Forum and seeking the dismissal of the order passed against it.

        The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:

        The complainant’s father by name, Kolluri Maruthi, had taken a house mortgage loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 23-11-2004 from opposite party No.1 State Bank of Hyderabad branch, at Rampur branch at Karimnagar.  It appears that opposite party No.3, insurance company floated a scheme by name Super Suraksha scheme to all the customers of opposite party no.1 who availed mortgage loans and within the range of 18 to 58 years of age.  Under the said scheme, the sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/-.  The premium amount of Rs.300/- was admittedly deducted from the account of the complainant’s father on 26-6-2005.  While so the said insured Kolluri Maruthi died on 28-7-2005.  As such the complainant as his only son put up the claim for the insurance amount and the same to be  appropriated towards discharge of the loan borrowed by his father to the extent it satisfied.  However, opposite party No1 sent a letter dated 28-2-2006 stating that there was no life insurance coverage and the application was rejected  on account of technical mistake, though initially the assurance was that all the loan applicants would be provided with insurance coverage by opposite party No.3.  Disappointed by the fact that insurance coverage was rejected, the complainant filed the claim under appeal before the District Forum.

        Opposite party No.1 filed a counter stating that it was only opposite party No.3 that rejected all the applications on account of some technical reasons and therefore opposite party No.1 had credited the refunded insurance premium to the SBI account of the deceased on 17-5-2005.  It also took the stand that the deceased had operated the account several times subsequently and therefore was evident that the insurance proposal was turned down.  On this premises, it is urged that the beneficiary cannot turn round and make a grievance of the refusal of the proposal as the complainant was constructively estopped.  Opposite party No.2 merely another functionary of opposite party No.1 remained exparte.

        Opposite party No.3 filed a reply contending that the group insurance scheme offered by them did not have any scheme covering the persons opting for loan against property and that the said borrower was therefore not insured under the Super Suraksha policy as he was not a housing loan borrower as envisaged under the group scheme.

        In support of his case the complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A9.  The opposite party No.3 got filed affidavit and relied upon documents Exs.B1 to B3.

        On a consideration of the evidence adduced, the District Forum held that the denial of the proposal of insurance submitted under the scheme by opposite party No.3 was untenable and therefore granted the relief virtually as prayed for.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No.3 filed the appeal contending that the District forum erred in upholding the claim though no insurance policy was ever issued signifying the insurance contract.

        Heard. 

The point for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?

        It is evident from the record that there was no concluded insurance contract but the way the affair was handled by opposite party no.3 proves that there was any amount of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3.  In the first place it is conspicuous in the filing of the counter wherein the reason that impelled opposite party no.3 to refuse the proposal was not disclosed.  It was on the other hand conveyed that the proposal was rejected for some technical reasons which is cryptic and violative of Section 4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, which reads as follows:

        ‘Sec. 4(1) ‘Every public authority shall

          (d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to

affected persons’.

The definition of public authority in Sec.2(h) undoubtedly encompasses the opposite party institutions including the appellant.

        Now ultimately as it came to filing the counter, opposite party no.3 maintained that the insurance coverage was meant only for simple loanee accounts but not mortgage loanee accounts.  This is also absurd in the absence of any authority or rule position produced by the appellant.  In these circumstances, the relief granted by the District Forum though cannot be justified as enforcing an insurance contract nevertheless deserves to be upheld on the ground of the deficiency in service demonstratively shown as against the appellant.

The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon his memo supported by a letter appeared to have received by him from the complainant himself, submitted that in case of dismissal of the appeal, the satisfaction of the order under appeal may also be recorded.  But this is untenable and opposed to the basic tenets of justice, as satisfaction of the decree in all situations must be recorded only on the initiative of the affected party,  in this case, the complainant, in the contenxt of this memo.  Nevertheless, it is always open to the counsel for the appellant as also the appellant to rely upon this satisfaction of the order which the counsel vouchsafes as having received from the complainant, in the appropriate proceedings before the District Forum, if it comes to that.

Reverting to the main theme, we do not see any merits in the appeal.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without any costs in the circumstances of the case, however super adding the observation set forth in the penultimate paragraph of this order

                                                     Sd/

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER.

                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER

Jm                                                                                                                    Dt.29-10-2009