Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/50/2016

K.S. Prabhakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., The Regional Sirector - Opp.Party(s)

T. Natarajan

06 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :   PRESIDENT

                  THIRU R   VENKATESAPERUMAL         :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 50 of 2016

[Against the order passed in C.C. No.358 of 2011 dated 29.12.2015 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Chennai (South)].

 

Monday, the  6th day of February 2023

 

Prabhakar K.S.,

New No.2, Q Block 57

15^th Street, Anna Nagar

Chennai   600 040.                                        ..  Appellant/

                                                                            Complainant          

 

Vs 

 1.  The Regional Director,

     SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

     State Bank Learning

Centre Complex, III Floor,

     No.20, Pycrofts Garden Road

     Nungambakkam,

     Chennai   600 006.

    

2.  SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

     “Natraj”, M.V. Road &

     Western Express Highway Junction

     Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 069.

    

Alternate address: CPC Belapur

     Navi Mumbai   400 614.

                                .. Respondents/

                                        Opposite parties  

    Counsel for Appellant/Complainant         : M/s. T.Natarajan

 Counsel for the Respondents/

                             Opposite parties         : M/s. D.Kamachi                                                                                                           

 

     This appeal has come before us for final hearing today, on 06.02.2023, and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellant and the respondents and on perusing the material records, this Commission passes the following order:-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court]

 

             Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by order dated 29.12.2015 in C.C. No.358 of 2011, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), the present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for enhancement of the compensation.

 

     2.  The case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows :-

             The complainant is an employee of State Bank of India.  He had availed a Housing Term Loan under Public scheme under Account No.30001398109, with a limit of Rs.7,00,000/- opened during December 2004.  The outstanding of Rs.6,67,331/- was covered under SBI Life Insurance, issued by the opposite parties.  The complainant availed Housing Term Loan Overdraft facilities by pledging the fixed deposit standing in his name.  The employees of State Bank of India were allowed to merge and convert such existing Housing Term Loans into a Staff Housing Term Loan account.  The complainant applied for the said facility and the same was sanctioned to him on 24.07.2008.  Though the complainant received the sanction letter during July 2008, the Personalised Banking branch, Nungambakkam did not open the account till March 2009.  On 18.05.2009, the complainant wrote to SBI Life Insurance/ the opposite parties requesting them to address the insurance needs of the enhanced limit in the new account bearing No.30717432990.  The total outstanding limit was about Rs.11,37,236/- and the additional cover required was for Rs.4,69,905/-.  As per the request of the opposite parties, the complainant submitted SBI Life Dhanaraksha Plus LPPT Membership form.  On 06.01.2010 the complainant was informed that the opposite parties have cancelled his insurance and even the partial cover available for Rs.6,67,331/- was unilaterally withdrawn.  The request of the complainant for extra cover for Rs.4,69,905/- had also been ignored.  The State Bank of India had foreclosed the first policy namely, 'Super Suraksha Insurance Policy' and asked the opposite parties to issue a SBI Life Dhanaraksha Plus LPPT policy.  The opposite parties issued a fresh policy cancelling the Super Suraksha Insurance Policy, which was not informed to the complainant.  The opposite parties having received the consideration had failed to inform the complainant that his risk was not covered under the said policy.  On the other hand, the complainant had paid the required premium of Rs.39,662/-.  The opposite parties acknowledged the premium vide its email dated 17.12.2010.  The complainant was not put on notice about the cancellation of the earlier policy 'Super Suraksha Insurance policy', which was cancelled on 19.06.2009 and he was without any insurance cover for a considerable period of time.  If any untoward incident might have happened, when the complainant did not have coverage, the complainant's family would have been burdened by the housing loan, along with other financial constraints.  Hence, alleging deficiency of service, the complainant has filed the complaint for the following directions to the opposite parties :-

1. Reimbursement of insurance premium of Rs.68,667/- paid and Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards damages for the mental agony caused, deficiency of service extended;  and
2. to pay the cost of the complaint.

 

             3.   Resisting the complaint, the opposite party had filed a version stating that the State Bank of India has not been added as a party in the complaint.  The SBI Life Insurance and State Bank of India are two separate legal entities.  The former is engaged in transacting life insurance business, formed under the Companies Act, 1956.  The State Bank of India is a Corporation formed under an Act of Parliament.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-impleading of necessary party.  The complainant is disputing the cancellation of the insurance cover effected in June 2009, whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 2011, i.e., after a period of two years.  Therefore, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  The insurance cover under Super Suraksha Scheme was cancelled in June 2009 based on the statement of accounts of the Master Policyholder only and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  If the complainant has any issues regarding the same, he should have filed the complaint before the forum having competent jurisdiction and not before the Consumer Commission.  Thus, he sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

             4.  In order to prove the case, both the parties have filed their proof affidavits and on the side of the complainant, 80 documents have been marked as Exhibits A1 to A80 and 7 documents were filed on the side of the opposite parties and marked as Exhibits B1 to B7.

  

             5.   The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence on records and relying upon Ex.B1 and B2 had observed that Condition No.13 of the Master Policy states that, "This Master Policy may be discontinued at the option of the Master Policy Holder or the company for new members after giving the other party atleast 3 months prior notice in writing".  No such notice has been exchanged and no proof had been submitted before this Forum.  Hence, it had come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

             6.   Keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the respondents/opposite parties, we have carefully perused the entire material available on records. 

            

             7.    We find that the respondents/ opposite parties have not filed any appeal as against the order of the District Forum.  Therefore, the finding rendered by the District Forum is admitted by the opposite parties.  The grievance of the complainant is that the first policy was issued during the year 2005 and a subsequent policy was issued by cancelling the earlier policy.  During the period when the first policy was cancelled and the second policy was issued, the appellant/complainant was deprived of his coverage.  The act of the respondents/opposite parties and the State Bank of India/Master Policy Holder in not intimating the appellant/complainant about the cancellation of his previous policy tantamount to deficiency of service.  This was the finding given by the District Forum.  The present appeal has been filed by the complainant only for enhancement of the compensation amount.  But we do not find any valid reasons to enhance the award amount to an exemplary sum.  Hence, we feel that to meet ends of justice, the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- may be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.

 

                8.  In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.  Except this enhancement, the order dated 29.12.2015 passed in C.C. No.358 of 2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is confirmed in all other aspects.  Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed.

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2023

 

 

                                                  

 

                                              

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                         

F.A. No. 50 of 2016

HON’BLE THIRU

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.  Except this enhancement, the order dated 29.12.2015 passed in C.C. No.358 of 2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is confirmed in all other aspects.  Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed. 

 

 

MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

06.02.2023               06.02.2023