BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL
C.C.Case No. 47 of 2017
Suprabha Satapathy, aged 50 years
W/o Late Pramod Kumar Satapathy,
Vill/PO: Khankara, P.S: Gondia, Dist: Dhenkanal-759014 ……….Complainant
Versus
1) S.B.I. Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regd. & Corporate Office, At: Natraj,
M.V.Road & Western Express High Way Junction,
Andheri (E) Mumbai-400069
2) Regional Manager/Director S.B.I Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
At-2nd Floor, Stock Exchange Bhavan, P-2, Jayadev Vihar,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751023
3) Branch Manager, s.B.I. Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
At-2nd Lane, Amalapada, Angul Town, PO/PS:/Dist: Angul-759122
4) Chief Manager, State Bank of India,
Main Branch, Angul, At/Po: PS/Dist: Angul-759122 …………Opp. Parties
Present: Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,
Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member
Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member
Counsel: for the complainant: :Sri Bisnu Kalyan Mangaraj & Associates
For the Opp. Parties No.1, 2 & 3: Sri Ganeswar Rath
For the Opp. Party No.4: Sri Bikram Prakash & Associates
Date of hearing argument: 3.1.2018
Date of order: 12.1.2018
JUDGMENT
Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,
In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties.
1) Very briefly, the case of the complainant stated are that the husband of the complainant namely Pramod kumar Satapathy had availed a personal loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 10.11.2015 from the S.B.I., Main Branch, Angul under SBI Express Credit Scheme while he was working as the Employment Officer in the District Employment Exchange Office, Angul. The loan was sanctioned on 9.11.2015 and a sum of Rs. 3,030 was debited from the Bank account No. 35354972886 of the complainant’s husband maintained in S.B.I Angul towards processing fees. The Branch Manager, SBI. Angul motivated the husband of the complainant for which he was constrained to make purchase a SBI Life Saral Shield Policy against his said loan in order to protect/cover the said loan in case of his death before liquidation of the entire loan liabilities. The deceased Husband of the complainant signed the proposal form in good faith, having been assured/motivated by the O.Ps and a sum of Rs 7,779/- was paid to the O.Ps towards Premium through money transfer from the Bank Account on 19.11.2015 against which a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- was assured. After payment of the required premium the complainant’s husband underwent all required medical tests, termed as Pre-Insurance Medical Tests on 11.12.2015 at Perfect Clinic, Computerized Diagnostic Division, Angul which was successfully conducted and it was duly intimated to the husband of the complainant on 17.12.2015 by way of SMS. The Insurance Bond was only to be issued in favour of the husband of the complainant. It is further stated that unfortunately the husband of the complainant expired on 02.01.2016. After death of the insured the son of the insured approached the Branch Manager, S.B.I. Angul for settlement of the loan account standing in the name of his late Father Pramod Kumar Satapapthy out of the assured sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- vide policy under proposal no.47YA019115. The son of the complainant received one message on 2.2.2016 through the registered Mobile Phone from the R.M, SBI Life that “Proposal NO.47YA019115 is cancelled and refund will be processed shortly without any rhyme or reason. The said intimation of the O.P.No.2 is illegal and arbitrary. On personal contact it was came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the said cancellation was due to non-submission of Medical Report. But it is a fact that the late husband of the complainant had undergone all required medical tests, termed as Pre-Insurance Medical Tests on 11.12.2015 at Perfect Clinic, Computerized Diagnostic Division, Angul which was successfully conducted and intimation was also communicated to the husband of the complainant to his Mobile through SMS on 17.12.2015. Again the son of the complainant approached the O.P.No.4 with a copy to the R.M, SB.I, R.B.O, Angul explaining the entire facts and also requested to recover the loan outstanding dues from the assured sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- covered under the said Insurance Policy and to take steps for settlement of the legitimate claim but the O.Ps did not take any steps. The S.B.I, Angul Branch had made a hold over the bank account of the complainant vide No.11636260240 maintained at S.B.I Joranda Branch and has recovered a sum of Rs. 3,19,883/- against the loan liabilities of her husband without the knowledge of the complainant which is illegal . The complainant issued a legal notice on 30.9.2016 to the O.Ps for settlement of the claim and in response to the legal notice a reply was given by the O.P-SBI Life insurance Co. Ltd, that wrongly intimating therein that the Proposal was received on 16.11.2016 with initial deposit of Rs. 7813/-. But in fact a sum of Rs. 7,779/- was transferred from the Bank account of the husband of the complainant on 19.11.2015. The O.Ps- S.B.I Life Insurance Co. Ltd have replied in a very tactful manner, playing foul tricks that since the deceased failed to furnish/ comply with the alleged assignment details i.e. letter of assignment and loan sanction letter as on 6.1.2016, the proposal was cancelled on 5.2.2016 and the proposal deposit of Rs. 7,813/- was refunded and as such the company is not liable to pay the insured claim of Rs. 7,50,000/-. It is alleged that non-payment of the insured sum after the death of the policy holder amounts to deficiency in service, illegal and arbitrary for which the family members of the complainant subjected to harassment and mental agony. Finding no other alternative the complainant has come up before this Forum seeking for a direction to the O.P-S.B.I Life Insurance Co. Ltd, as well as Chief Manager, state Bank of India, Main Branch, Angul to settle the claim of the complainant covered under SBI Life Saral Shield Policy against the assured sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum over the said settled claim. Besides, the complainant claims cost of litigation of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant. The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit.
2) The Opp. Parties no. 1,2 & 3 appeared and filed their written version. O.P.No.4 appeared but filed no written version. It is in the version of the O.P.No.1, 2 & 3 that the O.P.No.1 is located at Mumbai, O.P No.2 is at Bhubaneswar and o.P.No.3 is at Angul, hence the Forum may dismiss the complaint against the O.Ps for want of territorial jurisdiction. It is further stated that there was no concluded contract of Insurance between the deceased and SBI Life insurance Co. Ltd, during the life time of the deceased and hence there is no consumer-service provider relationship between the deceased and the Opp. Parties. Therefore, the complainant has no locus in this case as she is not a consumer. The present case is one unconcluded contract as no insurance cover was granted on the life of the deceased during his life time and there was no concluded contract of insurance. The deceased Mr. Pramod Kumar Satpathy was never granted any insurance cover during his life time. Therefore, the O.Ps are not liable to pay any amount of whatsoever nature towards the death claim benefits on the life of the deceased as demanded by the complainant since there was no contract of insurance between the deceased and the O.P. No death benefits is payable to the complainant. Mere submission of the proposal form and payment of premium deposit does not lead to insurance cover. On receipt of the proposal form, the insurer assesses the proposal and underwrites the same and if required, raises further requirements from the proposer and after receipt of the requirements and acceptance of the same the insurance cover is granted and a certificate of insurance is issued. In the instant case the proposal form was not accepted by the O.Ps as the same declined on non-compliance of requirements. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties and the complainant does not fall within the definition of Section 2 (1) ( c ) and Section 2 (1) (g) of the C.P. Act. It is admitted that the complainant’s husband had submitted a duly filled proposal form bearing No.47YA019115 dated 16.11.2015 with initial deposit of Rs. 7779/-. The proposer was requested to go for medical examination and on receipt of medical examination form, it was observed that signature on the medical examination form does not match with the signature on the proposal form. A requirement asking for specimen signature was called for and the same was received only on 6.1.2016. The specimen signature received on 27.12.2015 as the date of specimen signature is 27.12.2015, still there is no match between the signature on the proposal form and that of the specimen signature. Since the signature was not tallying and hence policy would not have been issued. It is further stated that in the medical examination form, Sri Pramod Kumar Satpathy had replied in positive to Question No.3 (b) have you ever been investigated/treated or diagnosed of Hypertension or blood Pressure. A requirement for assignment was raised on 6.1.2016 and the same was not received. It is clear that there was no match between the signature on the proposal form and that of the specimen signature provided. As there was no match in the signature on the proposal form and that of medical examination form, specimen signature was called for and the further requirements regarding hypertension were not called for. The assignment details were also not received. Therefore, it is clear that the proposal could not have been completed or policy would not have been issued before the date of death i.e. on 2.1.2016. The Insurance cover was not granted and the proposal was not accepted and the same was declined and the proposal deposit was refunded to the account bearing No.10994114478 of the deceased Pramod Kumar Satapathy held with State Bank of India on 5.2.2016. It is further stated that mere submission of a proposal form along with an approximate premium does not result into automatic acceptance of risk cover. There was no concluded contract and the insurance cover was not granted by the O.Ps during the life time of the Deceased. Hence there is no contractual obligation on the part of the O.Ps to settle the death claim and there is also no deficiency in service or unfair malpractice on the part of the Opp. Parties. The liability of the insurer will commence only on the acceptance of the proposal and granting of the insurance cover. The Opp. Parties are fully justified in refuting the allegations of the complainant and there was no binding contract between the parties. Accordingly, it is pleaded to dismiss the complaint.
3) On the aforesaid pleadings of the respective parties the following issues are framed for determination.
1) Whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction?
2) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
3) Whether the Opp. Parties are in deficiency of service?
4) To what relief, if any, the complainant is entitled?
4) Issue No.1
It is admitted that the complainant’s husband namely Pramod Kumar Satpathy during his life time had submitted a duly filled proposal form bearing No.47YA019115 dated 16.11.2015 with initial deposit of Rs. 7779/-. The present complainant being the legal married wife after the death of her husband submitted the claim before the Opp. Parties Insurance Company for settlement of the death claim under the S.B.I Life Saral Shield Policy which was obtained by her late husband on payment of premium while he was working as the Employment Officer in the District Employment Exchange Office Angul. As the claim was not settled and rejected she has come up before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company Op.No.1 to 3. On the other hand the Opp. Parties No.1 to 3 in their written version have categorically pleaded that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.Ps- Insurance Company categorically pleaded that the O.P.No.1 is located at Mumbai, O.P.No.2 is at Bhubaneswar and Opp. Party No.3 is at Angul while the complaint is filed at Dhenkanal for which this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and also prayed to dismiss the complaint on this ground alone. It is further argued on behalf of the Opp. Parties Insurance Company that this Forum may not exercise the jurisdiction and may dismiss the complaint due to want of territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed to such a submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Opp. Parties-Insurance Company and argued that the complainant is a permanent resident of Village Khankara in the District of Dhenkanal and the O.Ps are carrying on their business throughout the country through their Branch Offices including this District of Dhenkanal and as such the present dispute comes under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. On the above rival contentions advanced by both the parties we have gone through the pleadings and documents of the respective parties available on record. On our perusal of the complaint petition we find that the deceased Pramod Kumar Satapathy while working as Employment Officer in the District Employment Exchange Office, Angul had availed a personal loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 10.11.2015 from the O.P.No.4 at Angul and in order to protect /cover the said loan liabilities he had signed the Proposal Form of SBI Life Saral Shield on payment of premium of Rs. 7,779/- against the said proposal through money transfer from the Bank Account of the complainant. On the other hand the Opp. Parties No.1 to 3 are admittedly residing outside the District of Dhenkanal. The sole cause of filing of the present case is for non-settlement of the insurance claim after the death of the deceased proposer Pramod Kumar Satapathy. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opp. Parties Insurance Company pleaded that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. It is not disputed that the Opp. Parties Insurance Company having their branch Offices all over India and also carrying on business but that does not mean that all the District Forums shall assume territorial jurisdiction. Branch Office means the complainant must have some transaction with the concerned branch and there must be either part or whole cause of action. In absence of part or whole cause of action in the particular Branch Office territorial jurisdiction cannot be assumed. Besides on our perusal of the complaint petition we find that the complainant has no allegation of deficiency in service as against the Opp. Party No.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opp. Parties Insurance Company relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (iv) CPJ page 40 in case of Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. On our perusal of the above decision of the Apex Court we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have clearly laid down the rules for determining the territorial jurisdiction and this judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the case at hand. Now therefore, taking into account of the factual aspects and arguments advanced by both the parties into consideration and the Principles of law as has been decided by the Apex Court we are of the opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction for adjudication and settlement of her claim, if she so desire. In view of the above findings on the point of territorial jurisdiction, we do not think it just and proper to go into the merits of the case and discuss other issues and hence ordered.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is disposed of in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs with a liberty to approach the appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction for adjudication and settlement of claim, if she so desire. In the peculiar facts and circumstances parties are left to bear their own cost.
(Sri Purna Ch. Mishra) (Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy) (Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik)
Member Member President
