Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/93

Sawran kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Manish Dharmani, Adv

03 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 93 of 08.08.2014

Date of decision                   : 03.03.2015

         

Swaran Kaur, aged about 47 years, w/o Late Harminder Singh, resident of village Thappal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, PO Jhinjri, Distt. Ropar.

 

                                                                             .....Complainant

 

                                                Vs.

 

1. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its General Manager, Natraj,

    M.V. Road and Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri East,

    Mumbai M.S.

2. State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, New Abadi, Anandpur

    Sahib, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Ropar.

 

                                                                             ….Opposite Parties

 

3. Balwinder Singh

4. Narinder Singh

    Both sons of Late Harminder Singh, residents of village Thappal,

    Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, PO Jhinjri, Distt. Ropar.

5. Kulwinder Kaur wife of Kiran Pal Singh (daughter of Late Harminder

    Singh) resident of Village Ajauli, Tehsil Nangal, Distt. Ropar.

 

                                                            ….Performa Opposite Parties

 

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

                             Protection Act, 1986

 

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SHRI V.K. KHANNA, MEMBER

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

                             Sh. Manish Dharmani Advocate, counsel for the

                             complainant

Sh. R.S. Dyal Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party No.1

Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte

None for the Opposite Parties No.3, 4 & 5

 

 

 

ORDER

          MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

          Smt. Swaran Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for issuance of direction to the O.Ps. to make payment of the insurance claim of    Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. and to pay any other amount, which this Forum may deem fit, she being the legal heir of deceased Harminder Singh.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that her husband, namely, Harminder Singh, was serving as ASI in the Central Industrial Security Force at Delhi, and he expired on 24.6.2012. The performa O.Ps. No. 3 to 5 are the legal heirs of deceased Harminder Singh. On being allured by the officials of the O.Ps., her husband had purchased SBI Life Insurance policy bearing No.14045486306 and used to pay premium sincerely. After death of Harminder Singh, she had informed about the same to the O.Ps. and also told the reason for his death. She had fulfilled all the formalities, required for payment of the insurance claim, but the O.Ps. have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 13.6.2013, on the ground that the material facts pertaining to the deceased life assured were not disclosed at the time of signing of insurance contract. Deceased life assured was totally hale & hearty at the time of signing the agreement of insurance with the O.Ps. Moreover, before issuance of the policy in question, the O.Ps. had got conducted medical examination of Harminder Singh, deceased life assured, from the empanelled medical officer, and the O.Ps. had issued the policy only after receipt of clean chit regarding his health from the said medical officer. APC report was also prepared by the O.Ps., in which it was clearly mentioned by their agent that the deceased life assured was totally hale & hearty at the time of issuance of the insurance policy. It is further stated that she has no source of income and is living a very poor & miserable life. She, being the legal heir of the deceased life assured, is entitled to get the insurance claim under the policy in question., but the O.Ps. have illegally repudiated the same, without any reason and against the terms & conditions of the policy, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. No. 1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, while disposing of the First Appeal No. 428 of 2008, vide order dated 3.9.2013, wherein the rules for determining the territorial jurisdiction have been clearly laid down; that the contract of insurance is a contract of “Utmost Good Faith”, but the deceased life assured, namely, Harminder Singh had obtained the policy fraudulently, by committing breach of the principle of “Utmost Good Faith” by suppressing the material fact that he was suffering from knee ailment, diabetes mellitus & hypertension, prior to the date of commencement of risk under the policy in question, as such, in terms of Sec.17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the contract has become void ab-initio, the answering O.P. has no contractual liability to honour the claim under the policy and the complaint being ill-conceived & frivolous deserves to be dismissed in limine; that the issues involved in the complaint require thorough investigation, which is not possible in the summary proceedings before this Forum and only civil court is competent to deal with such like cases; that the repudiation of the claim by the answering O.P. is just & legal; that there has no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P.; that the complaint does not fall within the definition of Section 2 (1) (c) & 2 (1) (g) of the Act’ and the complainant does not fall within the definition of Section 2 (1) (b) of the Act and that the complaint is frivolous, malicious and has been filed with malafide intention to harass the answering O.P. and to pressurize it to sanction the claim. On merits, it is stated that the deceased life assured, Harminder Singh had applied for SBI Life Money Back Insurance Plan for the sum assured of Rs.1,80,000/-, with an initial proposal deposit of Rs.16,511/- vide proposal No. 14QA128565 dated 20.8.2011. The excess deposit of Rs.535/- was refunded vide cheque No.540056 dated 29.9.2011. On the basis of proposal form, policy bearing No.14045486306, with date of commencement as 31.8.2011, for the sum assured of Rs.1,80,000/- and for a term of 15 years was issued. The proposer in this case had answered negatively to all the questions pertaining to his health at the time of applying for the insurance policy. Since he had not disclosed any adverse feratures with regard to his health in the proposal form, therefore, the answering O.P. did not conduct his medical examination before issuance of the insurance policy in question.  The life assured was reported to have died on 24.6.2012 and intimation about the same was given to the answering O.P. on 14.5.2013. The policy resulted in a claim in just 9 months & 24 days. On detailed investigation, it was found that the deceased life assured was suffering from, knee ailments, diabetes mellitus Type-II & hypertension, prior to the date of commencement of risk under the policy in question, which proves that he had availed the policy fraudulently by suppressing his pre-existing illness. Accordingly, the O.P. insurance company had repudiated the claim in a just & legal manner and informed the complainant about the same vide letter dated 13.6.2013. Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 is applicable only in cases, where the claim is repudiated after 2 years. In the instant case, the claim was repudiated within 2 years of the date of acceptance of risk. Hence, this case does not come within the purview of Section 45 of the Insurance Act. It is stated that O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. No. 2 are separate & different legal entities and both cannot bind each other by their acts of commission or omission. Rest of the allegations/averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is reiterated that the answering O.P. has no contractual liability to honour the claim under the policy in view of suppression of material facts. It is further stated there is no deficiency in service, carelessness, negligence or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the answering O.P. and the complaint being frivolous, malicious, vexatious and an abuse of process of law deserves to be dismissed with costs.

 

4.                The O.P. No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.9.2014.

 

5.                In the written statement filed on behalf of all the proforma O.Ps. No. 3 to 5 all the facts/averments made in the complaint have been admitted and it is stated that they have no objection if the amount of insurance claim is given to the complainant.

 

6.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex. C4, affidavit of Sh. Rajdeep Kumar Ex. C5, photocopies of documents Ex. C1 to C3, Ex. C6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 tendered affidavit of Smt. Gurpreet Kaur, authorized representative, Ex. OP-1 & photocopies of documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-14 and closed the evidence, whereas the learned counsel for the proforma O.Ps. No. 3 to 5 closed the evidence without tendering any document.

 

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and O.P. No. 1 and gone through the record of the file, including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, carefully.

 

8.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 submitted that the complainant has impleaded SBI Life Insurance Company situated at Mumbai as O.P. No.1, State Bank of India, Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, as O.P. No.2,  whereas O.Ps. No. 3 to 5, being legal heirs of deceased, have been impleaded just as proforma O.Ps. Although in the complaint, it is alleged that the O.P. No.2 had instigated the deceased Harminder Singh for taking the insurance policy from O.P. No.1, but it has not been proved on record by any documentary evidence that actually the policy in question was got issued from O.P. No.1 through O.P. No.2. Even the perusal of proposal form (Ex. OP-2) clearly reveals that the same was submitted by the deceased Harminder Singh with the office of SBI Life Insurance Company, situated at Delhi and the letter dated 13.6.2013 (Ex. C1) regarding repudiation of the claim was also issued by O.P. No.1 i.e. the Mumbai office of the insurance company. Neither the complainant has impleaded the branch office of the insurance company situated at Ropar nor has placed on any document to prove that any cause of action has accrued to her within the territorial jurisdiction of Ropar District, to file the instant complaint against the insurance company. Therefore, the complaint filed against SBI Life Insurance Company i.e. O.P. No.1, who had issued the policy in question and whose office is situated at Mumbai, is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, without going into merits of the case.

 

                   To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the O.P. No.2, whose office is situated in District Ropar, had instigated the deceased Harminder Singh for the purchase of the policy from O.P. No.1, hence, part of cause of action to file the instant complaint  had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Not only this the complainant had also received the repudiation letter dated 13.6.2013 from the O.P. No.1 at her village, which falls in Ropar District, thus, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain & try this complaint.

 

9.                From the perusal of proposal form, it is apparent that the deceased life assured had purchased the policy in question from New Delhi and not from Anandpur Sahib. Nodoubt, the complainant has averred that being allured by the O.P. No. 2, her husband, namely, Harminder Singh deceased, purchased the policy in question from O.P. No.1, but no document has been placed on record to prove that any role was played by O.P. No.2, in the issuance of said insurance policy. Thus, the said averment made by the complainant is baseless. It may be stated that the complainant has impleaded the SBI Life Insurance Company, whose office is situated at Mumbai, as O.P. No.1 in the array of the O.Ps., but has not impleaded its branch office, if any, situated in Ropar District and even has failed to establish that any cause of action has accrued to her within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover, even receipt of repudiation letter by the complainant within the territory of Ropar District does not confer her any right to file complaint before this Forum. Merely by distorting the facts and unnecessarily impleading the O.P. No. 2, as a party in the complaint, just to attract the territorial jurisdiction, will not serve any purpose. Since neither any cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Ropar District nor any branch office of the SBI Life Insurance Company situated within the Ropar District has been impleaded in the array of the O.Ps., and the O.P. No.2 has been impleaded unnecessarily, therefore, this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and this complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. This issue has been squarely settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of ‘Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd.’ 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP).

 

10.              For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/court for redressal of her grievance and the adjudicating court may condone the delay, if any, as per provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act,1963, for the time spent by the complainant before this Forum.

 

11.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 03.03.2015                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

(V.K. KHANNA)                    (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                    MEMBER                               MEMBER.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

�z�R�