Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Judicial Member.

 1.    Appellant SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15/01/2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati, in consumer complaint CC/178/2008, by which the Consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant came to be allowed. (The appellant and respondents shall be referred by their original nomenclature).

2.      Short facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be narrated as under. :-

3.      Complainant No.1 Neha Dilip Jadhao is the wife of deceased Dilip Jadhav, complainant Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter  respectfully of deceased Dilip Jadhav he is resident   of  Amravati. Complainant No.1 has contended that her husband namely Dilip  Jadhav had applied for loan from O.P.No.1/State Bank of India for  purchase of plot and also for purchase of house and accordingly loan of Rs.10,00,000/- came to be duly sanctioned by the State Bank of India on 03/03/2007. On 03/04/2007 Dilip Jadhav has withdrawn  an  amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the land so purchased was duly mortgaged with State Bank of India. On 17/09/2007 Dilip Jadhav  had  withdrawn sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. Complainants have contended that the loan taken by Dilip Jadhav was duly insured with  O.P.No.2/ SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Complainants have contended  that O.P./State Bank of India had also withdrawn sum of Rs.49,644/- on 21/08/2007 for being paid by way of premium to SBI Life  Insurance Co.Ltd.. Meanwhile the husband of complainant No.1 namely Dilip Jadhav died on 08/10/2007 and this  fact was also informed by the complainants to State Bank of India on 27/11/2007. Complainants have contended that the premium of Rs.49,644/- which was sent to SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. was not accepted and was  returned back on the ground that deceased Dilip Jadhav had not filled up the Common  Health Questionnaire. Complainants have contended that they have incurred expenses of Rs.7,50,000/- towards construction of house and so the complainants were entitled to sum of Rs.10,53,000/- by way of insurance, but the same was falsely repudiated and rejected on flimsy grounds. Complainants have therefore contended that O.P.No.2/ SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. has indulged in deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice and so the present complaint was filed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

4.      O.P.No.1 State Bank of India has resisted the complaint by filing written statement on record. O.P. has only admitted that the complainant had taken loan for construction of house, but had denied the rest of the allegations. O.P.No.1 has admitted that the loan taken by the deceased Dilip Jadhav was duly insured with O.P.No.2/  SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.. O.P.No.1 has contended that the amount  of Rs.49,644/- had come to be transferred by way of premium in favour of O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.2 SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. also duly  informed about the same. Complainants had given the intimation of death of Dilip Jadhav after delay of  40 days. O.P.No.1 State Bank of India was not liable towards payment of any dues of the complainants.

5.      O.P.No.2/ SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. has also appeared  and  resisted the complaint by filing written statement on record. O.P.No.2 has specifically contended that the amount of premium which was paid by the complainant as alleged was never accepted by the O.P.No.2. Further the deceased Dilip Jadhav   also  not complied with the condition regarding filling up Common  Health Questionnaire and so no concluded contract had taken place  between the complainant and O.P.No.2/ SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. O.P.No.2 has  further contended that since the loan amount was worth more than Rs.7,50,000/- it was necessary for deceased Dilip Jadhav to fill up the Common Health Questionnaire and this fact  was also informed by letter dated 11/09/2007 and 29/10/2007. There was no unfair trade practice indulged by O.P.No.2 and so complaint filed by the complainants was not tenable in law and deserves to be rejected.

6.      Complainants thereafter led their evidence by way of affidavit and also placed reliance upon several documents. O.P.Nos.1 and 2 have also placed reliance upon evidence affidavit as well as documents and written notes of argument. Learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati thereafter went through the complaint as well as evidence and documents, written notes of argument filed on record. After appreciating the documents and evidence adduced on record and written notes of arguments filed by both parties, the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati come to the conclusion that though the complainants have not filled up the common health questionnaire, no inference can be drawn that there was no concluded contract between the complainants and O.P.No.2. Learned District Consumer Commission Amravati also came to the conclusion that O.P.No.2 had committed an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Accordingly the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati partly allowed the complaint and directed that O.P.No.1/State Bank of India should finalised the accounts and inform the O.P.No.2/ SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.  Learned District Consumer Commission Amravati also directed the O.P.No.2/ SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.  to pay the said amount alongwith compensation to the complainants. It is against this judgment and order dated 15/01/2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati that the present appellants have come up in appeal.

7.      We have heard advocate Shri G.Moharir for the appellant and advocate Shri P.J.Deshmukh for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and advocate Mrs. Bhojwani for respondent No.4. We have also gone through the record and proceedings as well as written notes of argument filed by both the parties. On the basis of the facts stated above the only point which arises for our determination is as under with our findings given against the same and reason thereafter. 

Reasons for findings :-

8.      Prior to dealing with the real controversy in the present appeal it would be appropriate to deal with certain admitted fact. There is no dispute that the husband of the complainant No.1 and father of the complainant Nos.2 and 3 namely Dilip Jadhav had applied for loan  of Rs.11,00,000/- for construction of house and the loan of Rs.10,63,000/- had came to be sanctioned to deceased Dilip  Jadhav on 03/03/2007. There is also no serious dispute that the loan sanctioned was duly insured with SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd./ appellant herein. There is further no dispute that after the sanction of loan on 03/03/2007 Dilip Jadhav died on 08/10/2007. O.P.No.1 State Bank of India has taken specific plea that an amount of Rs.49,644/- was sent by State Bank of India towards insurance premium to SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. State Bank of India/O.P.No.1 has also taken a stand that the information regarding death of Dilip Jadhav on 08/10/2007 was also received by State Bank of India on 27/11/2007 alongwith death certificate. Complainants have taken a plea that O.P.No.1/State Bank of India had not informed them regarding the non completion of formality about insurance policy and has further contended that it was the sole responsibility of O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to get the entire procedure for insurance policy completed before the amount was released.

9.      At the out set it is submitted by the learned advocate for appellant SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. that the learned District Consumer  Commission Amravati has not at all appreciated the fact that  the respondents/complainants had not completed the formalities regarding insurance and so no concluded contract had taken place with the respondent/complainant. Secondly, it is submitted that the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati had not taken in to consideration the fact the Common Health questionnaire was not filled up by complainant and was not received by SBI Life Insurance  Co.Ltd. and so for want of necessary formality no insurance policy was issued, but this fact was also ignored by the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati. According to appellant, the complainant was himself negligent in fulfilling the formalities. It is argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that though the premium of Rs.49,644/- towards insurance policy was sent by State Bank of India on 21/08/2007 the same was duly returned back on 05/09/2007. In this connection the learned advocate for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the said letter dated 05/09/2007. Further our attention was also drawn to one letter dated 27/12/2007 addressed by State Bank of India to the complainant No.1 Neha Jadhav   stating that since her husband Dilip Jadhav had  not filled the Common Health questionnaire the procedure for issuing of insurance policy was not completed and so the premium of Rs.49,644/- was being transferred by the branch to the account of the complainant. Copy of this letter dated 27/12/2007 is also placed on record. In the light of the aforesaid document it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the complainant himself has not filled up the Common Health questionnaire which was necessary to be filled and so there was no concluded contract between the complainant Dilip Jadhav and the O.P.No.2/ SBI Life Insurance  Co.Ltd. Accordingly it was submitted that the insurance company was not at all liable to pay any claim much less the claim alleged by the present complainants. We have heard Shri P.J.Deshmukh the learned advocate for the respondents/ complainants and he has strongly rebutted these contentions made on behalf of the appellant. Firstly Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondent has submitted that the loan taken by the complainant was of Rs.10,76,000/- and was much above the limit of Rs.7,50,000/-. During the course of argument Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for the respondent has denied that the Common Health questionnaire was not filled by the complainant. On the contrary Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondent has drawn our attention specifically to the copy of consent – cum- authorization cum good health declaration which was duly signed by deceased Dilip Jadhav on 21/08/2007 where as he died on 08/10/2007. Shri P.J.Deshmukh, learned advocate for respondents has submitted that the deceased Dilip Jadhav had given a good health declaration and the same was duly signed by Dilip Jadhav on 21/08/2007. Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondent has contended that though the premium amount was transferred by State Bank of India in the account of respondents but not a single time any information was given by the present appellant SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd to fill up the  Common Health questionnaire. Further the deceased Dilip Jadhav was never informed in his life time regarding the refusal of the insurance policy. It is submitted by Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondents that it was the responsibility of the appellant as well as State Bank of India to see that the deceased Dilip Jadhav fills up the Common Health questionnaire and so there was no  error in the findings given by the learned District Consumer Commission Amravati. Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondents has submitted that the insurance claim could not be rejected on the ground that the insured namely the complainant had not under gone compulsory medical examination or has not filled the Common Health Questionnaire as alleged. It was argued by Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondents that since the loan amount of the complainant exceeded Rs.7,50,000/- the medical examination was compulsory and in the absence of the same the proposal was deemed to have been accepted. On this aspect Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondents has heavily relied upon one judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.Srinivas…….V/s……State Bank of India Life Insurance Co.Ltd, reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 2180. In this case also the facts were that the insured died after one year after submission of proposal, but the proposal of insurance was not accepted as insured did not under go compulsory medical examination and premium was refunded after the death of insurer. In that case also no communication was sent to insurer for medical examination. In that case also the insured had filled up the good health declaration. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para No.11 that the proposer was willing to join the life insurance coverage from the insurance company subject to his under taking medical examination. It was observed that since the loan amount exceeded Rs.7,50,000/- medical examination was compulsory. It was observed that medical examination should have been conducted immediately on filling the form. No such steps taken to obtain Common Health Questionnaire  before death. According to Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondents no such information was given by the appellant/ Insurance Company to the deceased prior to his death. In this connection Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondents has also placed reliance on another judgment in the case of State Bank of India Life Insurance Ltd…….V/s…….Aasha Lata Parida and another, reported in III (2010) CPJ 228. In this case also the complainant had submitted the necessary papers duly filled in alongwith declaration of good health and the draft towards premium was also forwarded to the insurance company. It was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that the defence taken by the O.P. that deceased had not turned up for medical examination in spite of sufficient information was not sufficiently supported by documentary evidence. It was further observed that the insurance cover was effective from the date of premium sent to the O.P. and repudiation of claim was bad in law.

10.       On the other hand Shri Moharir, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon one judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India …….V/s…….. Shri Deepak Chhabra in Revision Petition No.61/2012. In that matter the Hon’ble National Commission had referred to one judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in  Life Insurance Corporation of India …….V/s…..Raja Vasireddy Komalaralli Kamle and others, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1014, wherein it was observed that the mere receipt and retention of premium until after the death of applicant or mere preparation of the policy documents is not acceptance and does not give rise to a contract.

11.       In the same way Shri Moharir, learned advocate for the appellant has also placed reliance upon another judgment in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co.Ltd……V/s…….Panvel Industrial Cooperative Estates Ltd.,  reported in AIR 1992, Bombay 107. In this case it was observed that mere payment of premium amount and its acceptance by agent does not amounts to concluded contract of insurance. But in our view the said judgment will not go to help of the appellant as facts are distinguishable. 

12.       We have gone through these judgments as well as the judgment cited by the Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondents.

13.      In the present case before us the respondent No.4 State Bank of India has taken plea that there was no privity of contract between late Dilip Jadhav and the present respondent No.4/State Bank of India as far as insurance is concerned. Respondent No.4/State Bank of India is only concerned with providing loan and to disbursement of loan. The liability and responsibility of taking of insurance and complying the formality was that of insurance company namely SBI  Life Insurance Co.Ltd. According to respondent No.4 there was no deficiency in service on their part so far as disbursement of loan was concerned. Respondent No.4 has further contended that Dilip Jadhav expired on 08/10/2007 and appellant has returned the proposal form and demand draft dated 11/10/ 2007 alongwith letter and this fact was conveyed to respondent No.1 Smt.Neha Jadhav by letter dated 27/11/2007 and so bank was not at all responsible or liable for non issuance of insurance policy. Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondent No.1 has rebutted this contention and has submitted before us that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the present appellant had duly informed the respondents regarding non acceptance of the premium and non issuance of insurance cover. Shri P.J.Deshmukh learned advocate for respondent has further contended that it was duty of the appellant SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. to see that the Common Health  Questionnaire was filled up by the deceased Dilip Jadhav/complainant prior to his death and so there was clearly deficiency in service on the part of the appellant State Bank of India Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

14.       From the aforesaid discussions as well as the various documents placed on record it become amply clear that though the SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. had declined to accept the demand draft  of Rs.49,644/- towards premium, the letter regarding the same was sent only to the Manager State Bank of India and there is no material to show that the complainant/respondent No.1 was duly informed by the respondent SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. about the same even after the death of Dilip Jadhav although the appellant SBI Life  Insurance Co.Ltd was expected to do so. Further SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. was also expected to get filled  Common Health Questionnaire doing immediately on payment of premium. The learned District Consumer Commission Amravati has also elaborately dealt with this aspect. We do not find any error or infirmity in the said findings in the absence of any material placed on record by the present appellant/ SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. before the learned  District Consumer Commission Amravati. As such the contentions advanced by Shri Moharir, learned advocate for the appellant on this count can not be accepted.    

15.        In the light of the aforesaid discussions held by us and the documents placed on record by both the parties we are unable to accept the contentions advanced by Shri Moharir, learned advocate for the appellant/ SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. that the learned District  Consumer Commission Amravati has committed any error in appreciating the facts on record or that the appellant/insurance company is not liable so far as deficiency in service is concerned under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. We therefore feel that the appeal preferred by the appellant/ SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. is  devoid of any substance and so we answer the Point No.1 in negative and by way of sequel we proceed to pass the following order.

                                     // ORDER // 

1. Appeal is hereby dismissed.
2. Appellant to bear his own cost as well as cost of respondents.
3. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.