| This revision has been filed against the order of AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.293 of 2010. In the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum and ordered OPs Nos.1, 2 and 3 and to pay Rs.2 lakhs together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim. 2. The fact of the case, in very brief, are that the petitioner/Complainant, her husband and her son were joint account holders of a savings bank account with OP-1, State Bank of India. The Complainant son obtained an insurance policy called uper Surakshafor SBI Account Holders, for Rs.2 lakhs. OP-1 was authorized to directly debit the above mentioned account for the annual premium, every year. The certificate of insurance was issued on 30.9.2004. 3. The insured died on 8.2.2009 in a road accident. The Complainant, his nominee, filed a claim under the policy. On 21.5.2009 she received a letter from OPs that the policy of the deceased had lapsed for non-payment of premium. As it transpired the first two annual premium amounts were directly debited to their account and thereafter OP-1 had failed to debit the premium amount to the joint account. The case of the Complainant was that there was sufficient balance available in the account for payment of the premium, but OPs Nos. 2 &3 had neither issued any letter to the deceased to pay the premium nor advised OP-1 to remit the same. Therefore, the Complainant had sought direction to the OPs to pay the assured amount with interest and compensation. 4. The District Forum dismissed the complaint in the following terms:- t is the contention of the complainant that there were standing instructions for debiting of the amount from SB account maintained with opposite party No.1 towards the annual premium to the credit of opposite party No.2. However, to substantiate the same no documents are produced. Admittedly, the deceased died on 8-2-09 in a road accident. There being no evidence whatsoever with regard to the payment of annual premiums for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and there being no such standing instructions and opposite party No.3 being only a processing center, and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 being separate entities, opposite party No.2 had rightly rejected the claim of the complainant as the deceased was not under the coverage of any policy on the date of his death as the original policy issued in the year 2004 was to be renewed by payment of annual premium every year and which premium was not paid and policy was not renewed in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 and therefore there are no merits in the complaint. 5. In the appeal by the Complainant, the State Commission disagreed with the above view of the District Forum. The Commission referred to the brochure of the relevant policy, which contained the following details as to its content and operation:- 1. ife cover of Rs.1 lakhs. In case of death due to accident, Rs.2 lakhs. 2. Most cost effective and convenient. 3. Life insurance cover upto 60 years age. 4. No medical examination- only Good Health Declaration required. 5. Premium payment by debit to your account. 6. Premium for 18-39 years of age: Rs.360/- per annum. 7. Premium for 40-58 years of age: Rs.600/- per annum. 8. Simple claim settlement process. 6. The State Commission, therefore, allowed the appeal of the Complainant, setting aside the order of the District Forum with the following observations:- eeping in view the terms in the brochure and the fact that the opp. parties did not give any reasonable explanation for not continuing to debit the premium amounts to the policy holder account, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service on behalf of the opp. Parties because of which the policy lapsed and the policy holder claim was repudiated. It is not in dispute that the policy holder died in a road accident on 8.2.09 and Ex.B1 clearly stipulates that there is an accidental benefit of double the amount of the sum assured which in the instant case would be Rs.2 lakhs. Hence were are of the considered opinion that the opp. Parties should pay the insurance coverage and the accidental death benefits to the complainant i.e. Rs.2 lakhs together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.3000/-. 7. We have heard Mr. Kapil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner SBI Life Insurance Company and have gone through the evidence on record. Considering the nature of the scheme of Super Suraksha insurance policy, we consider the contention of the petitioner/SBI Life that the State Bank of India and SBI Life Insurance Company are two separate and independent legal entities, as irrelevant to the issue before us. For the same reason, we reject its argument that the petitioner is not responsible for inaction on the part of the State Bank of India. 8. It is an admitted fact that the scheme was available to the account holders of the SBI. It is also not disputed that the Bank debited the premium amount to the account of the revision petitioner, on the stipulated dates for two years and ceased to do so thereafter, without informing the insured. Its failure to do so even when adequate money was available in the account of the insured, is clearly a deficiency in service. We are also of the view that the Petitioner/SBI Life Insurance Company erred in not taking up this issue with the SBI when it did not receive the premium after 2 years and also did not inform the insured about the same. It clearly amounts to a deficiency of service. On the other hand, it was reasonable for the insured to expect that the premia are being regularly deducted, as in the past two years. The State Commission has therefore rightly concluded that all three parties (OPs 1 to 3 before the District Forum) are guilty of deficiency in service. We are in agreement with the view of the State Commission. 9. In the result, we find no merit in this revision petition. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. | |
