DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  8^th day of  September, 2023 

Present      :    Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                   :   Smt. Vidya A., Member                                                                       Date of Filing:  19/08/2019     

                                                                                  CC/212/2019

1. Raveendran P.V.,

S/o. V.U. Menon,

Nandanam, Athalur,

Kodunthirapully (PO),

Pirayiri, Palakkad – 678 004

Suppl. 2.    T.R.Naveen,

S/o. Raveendran P.V.

Nandanam, Athalur,

Kodunthirapully (PO),

Pirayiri, Palakkad – 678 004                       -                     Complainants

      (Impleaded as per order  dated 24/2/2022 in IA/12/2022)

      (By Adv. V.K. Venugopalan)

                                                                                                Vs

1. The Authorised officer,

State Bank of India,

Retail Asset Small and Medium

Enterprises Centre (RASMEC),

SBI Building, English Church Road,

Palakkad – 678 001

2. SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Corporate Office & Regd. Office: -

“Nataraj”, ME Road & Western

 Express Highway junction,

Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 069

3. The Manager,

SBI (ADB) Branch, Palakkad – 678 001     -                       Opposite parties  

      (O.P.s 1 & 3 by  Adv. P. Rammohan;

      O.P. 2 by Adv. P. Prasad)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President  

1. Complaint was initially filed by the 1^st complainant alone. Subsequently 2^nd complainant was also impleaded as additional complainant.
2. Complainants had availed a Housing Loan from the 3^rd O.P. Bank. As part of the disbursing of the home loan, it was requisite that the complainants avail an insurance coverage from the 2^nd O.P.  Policy documents were received by the O.P.s only after 3 years of issuance of the policy. The complainants were shocked to find that the policy was issued in the name of 2^nd complainant, whereas they had executed documents under the impression that the 1^st complainant was the beneficiary named therein.  Naming of 2^nd complainant led to loss of benefits payable to the complainants. Aggrieved thereby, this complainant is filed.
3. O.P.s 1 and 3 filed version, of which essential skeletal pleadings are that the 2^nd complainant had filled and signed the forms and all benefits would be payable upon the occurrence of event assured.
4. O.P. 2 filed version stating that the insurance cover was granted during April 2013 and the complaint was filed in 2019 and hence the complaint is barred by limitation. The second opposite party is the life assured under the policy. There has been no deficiency in service whatsoever on the part of the opposite party as the policy was issued as per the contents of the membership form, which was already filled when the 2^nd O.P. received it.
5.  The following issues were framed:

1. Whether there is manipulation of name of assured in the policy documents?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service /unfair trade practice  on the part of OPs?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?
4. Any other reliefs?

At the time of hearing, though not a proper procedure, counsel for the complainant wanted an additional issue to be answered so as to judiciously conclude the proceedings.  Accordingly an additional issue is being framed to answer, since this question would anyway have to be answered pursuant to Issue number 2.

5.         Whether the said policy will cover the loan liability in case of demise of either of             complainants 1 or 2 or both of them?

6.         (i)         Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to  A4.  Marking of             Exts.     A1 to A4 were objected to on the ground they were photostat copies. Since this       Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of any case that the said document is a forgery, objection is overruled.

                        Complainant No.1 was examined as PW1. Ext. B1 was marked through      confrontation.

            (ii)        OP1 filed proof affidavit and marked  Exts. B2 to B6.  OP2 marked Exts. B7 & B8.  

Issue No. 1

7.         Unequivocal case of the complainants is that the policy was availed with the intention of having the name of 1^st complainant as the life assured. O.P.s submitted that proposal was made by the 2^nd complainant himself with the name of the 2^nd complainant as member. O.P.s 1 and 3 also submitted that the 2^nd complainant was chosen as the assured since the age of the 1^st complainant was higher a higher premium will have to be paid. It was to have a lesser premium that the name of the 2^nd complainant was proposed. In order to ascertain whether there is any manipulation we need only go through the documents.

8.         Ext. B1 is the membership form (proposal form), bearing No.7002364429. In page 2, in ‘MEMBER DETAILS’ name of the member is shown as T.R. Naveen, the 2^nd complainant.  Thereafter name of the 1st complainant is shown as proposer. Occupation of the member shows that the proposed member is a software engineer. 1^st complainant is admittedly an Ex-serviceman (Lusker, class IV officer), as can be seen from the facing sheet of deposition of PW1 as well as in his answer to the questions put forth by the counsel for O.P.s1 and 3.

                        In the same page name of the 1^st complainant is shown as the nominee.

                        In page 3 of Ext.B1, the 2^nd complainant has affixed his signature in two places. Ext. B1 was marked by confronting the same to the 1^st complainant. In page No. 4 also the   2^nd complainant has affixed his signature. In his deposition, the 1^st complainant has admitted that the said document was executed by the 2^nd complainant.

                        Ext. B7 is the certificate of insurance. The life assured details shows the member ship form number to be 7002364429.  Name of the member therein is shown as Mr. T.R. Naveen. Loan account number is shown as 32938311708 which is the loan account in the name of the complainants. The subscript in Ext.B7 acknowledges that Mr. T.R. Naveen was having loan account with SBI and has joined the plan under which the borrowers are provided life cover for the sum assured.    

9.         Thus we can see that Ext.B7 certificate of insurance was issued pursuant to execution of Ext.B1 membership form filled and signed by the second complainant.  We could not find any anomaly or abnormality in the said process.  Therefore we hold there is no manipulation of the name of the life assured as alleged by the complainants.

 Issue No. 5 

10.       This was an issue framed by this Commission at the behest of the counsel for the complainant. Albeit the said procedure of framing issue at the time of hearing is to be considered as being improper and as one being without giving an opportunity to the O.P.s to answer the Issue, we acquiesced to frame the said Issue as, in the absence of this specific issue, this question would have formed part of answer to Issue no. 2. 

11.       At this juncture it would be pertinent to note that the case of the complainants are very much hypothetical in that none of the complainants are dead and so we  can’t ascertain whether the 2^nd opposite party would honour their claim or not.  Yet considering the passionate concern and argument of the counsel for complainant, we are dealing with this Issue.

12.       Ext.B1 & B7 are, as already stated, the membership form and the policy document issued pursuant to the membership form. PW1 has already admitted that Ext.B1 membership form was executed by the 2^nd complainant. Ext.B7 certificate of insurance leaves no stone unturned in as much as the life assured details, life cover details, loan details and premium details are mentioned. Name of the member is shown as       Mr.T.R. Naveen. In the life assured details, master policy holder is shown as SBI.  Membership form is seen to be issued by Mr. T.R. Naveen. Master policy commence date is from 17/4/2013 till 17/4/2028. The subscript reads as herein below:

            “SBI LIC LTD is pleased to acknowledge that Mr. T.R. Naveen, having his/her loan account with SBI has joined ‘SBI LIFE – RiNn Raksha’ plan under which the borrowers are provided life cover for the sum assured as per the sum assured schedule mention in the annexure, subject to the terms and condition contained in the master policy document”.

13.       Thus it is clear from  a reading of Ext.B7 that the OP2 had undertook to provide life cover for the sum assured as per the schedule mentioned in the annexure upon the death of Mr. T.R. Naveen.  The complainants can be assured that there is a valid and subsisting agreement between them and the 2^nd opposite party.

Issue No. 2  

 14.      Resultantly, we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.    

            Issue No. 3  

15.       The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

            Issue No. 4 

14.       This is a complaint wherein the complainants have, even after having full notice regarding the fact that Ext.B1 proposal form was executed by the 2^nd complainant and Ext.B7 was issued pursuant to Ext.B1, went witch hunting after OPs.  We cannot comprehend how the complainants, even after being assisted by experts could so adamantly and whimsically stick on to such ludicrous argument. In fact this Commission had time and again pointed out to the counsel for the complainant that considering the existence of proposal form, signature of the 2^nd complainant therein and issuance of Ext.B7, this case was very weak in spirit and letter. But the complainants soldiered on with the complaint.

15.       The opposite parties were pulled into a fray for no fault of theirs. Therefore this complaint is nothing short of a malicious and vexatious litigation.  The opposite parties are to be compensated for the malicious conduct of the complainants.

16.       In the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that an amount of Rs.25,000/- be paid by the complainant to each of the opposite parties within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

 17.      Holding thus, we dismiss the complaint.         

                  Pronounced in open court on this the  8^th  day of September,  2023.         

                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                                President                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                             Smt. Vidya A.

                                                                 Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext.A1 – Copy of communication dated 23/7/2018

Ext.A2 – Copy of lawyers notice dated 1/3/2019

Ext.A3 – Copy of certificate of insurance

Ext.A4 -  Table of sum assured benefit

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1 –   Copy of SBI Life – RINnRaksha Membership form

Ext.B2 –  Copy of salary certificate

Ext.B3 –  Copy of agreement letter dated 13/4/2013   

Ext.B4 –  Copy of statement of account  No.32938311708

Ext.B5 –  Copy of statement of account No.30351643370

Ext.B6 –  Copy of statement of account No.10396561573

Ext.B7 –  Same as Ext.A3

Ext.B8 –  Copy of policy document  

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  

PW1 – Raveendran P.V. (1^st complainant)

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.