DATE OF FILING : 07.01.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 03.03.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 08.02.2016.
1. Dali Borman,
wife of late Narayan Chandra Barman,
2. Memo Barman,
3. Remo Barman,
both sons of late Narayan Chandra Barman,
all residing at flat no. 3A, Durgabari,
21, K.P. Kumar Street, P.O. Bally,
Howrah 711 201. …………………………………………… COMPLAINANTS.
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Liluah Branch,
53, G.T. Road,
Howrah – 711204.
2. Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Howrah,
106, Kiran Sankar Singha Road ( Ganges Garden ),
Howrah 711 102.
3. Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Howrah.
106, Kiran Sankar Singha Road ( Ganges Garden ),
Howrah 711 102.
4. Head Claims,
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Central Processing Centre Kapas Bhaban,
Plot no. 3A, Sector 10, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai 400614. ……………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioners, Dali Barman, and two others, against the o.p. S.B.I., Liluah Branch and three others, praying for direction upon the o.ps. to release the case mentioned property free from all encumbrances by adjusting the due loan amount in connection with loan account no. C 0070767971 with the death claim amount of deceased Narayan Chandra Borman and hand over deed kept as collateral security and others. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Narayan Chandra Borman availed of a loan facility from o.p. no. 1, S.B.I, Liluah Branch, amounting to Rs. 4,40,000/- payable by 168 equal monthly installments of Rs. 4680 and the said loan was covered by S.B.I. Life Suraksha Group Insurance Scheme for which the o.p. no. 1 deducted a sum of Rs. 19,064/- from the borrower towards payment of premium of SBI Life Insurance Policy but did not deliver the policy. The loan agreement was signed on 13.07.2006. On 17.12.2012 the o.p. no. 1 called the husband of the petitioner to his office and procured his signature upon some SBI Life Policy Papers and deducted Rs. 5,087/- from the loan account. On 06.4.2013 the husband of the petitioner suffered from kidney disease and expired at Belur Sramajibi Swasthya Prakalpa Samity under the treatment of Dr. Manick Kumar who issued death certificate by issuing cause of death as respiratory failure in a case of chronic kidney disease. On 10.4.2013 this petitioner informed the o.p. about the death of her husband and prayed for taking necessary steps but the o.p. no. 4 refused the claim of the petitioner by letter dated 02.07.2013. The o.p. nos. 1 to 3 never made any policy even though they received Rs. 19,064/- on 13.09.2006 and later on issued a fresh policy. The o.ps. demanded payment of loan amount over phone though due to gross negligence on their part the loan subsisting. The husband of the petitioner having paid the one time premium of the SBI Life Insurance Policy and after his death the loan would have been adjusted but the demand of the o.ps. compelled the petitioner to file this case.
- The o.p.no. 4 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them stating that o.p. no. 4 carrying on life insurance business as licensed by IRDC under the provision of Insurance Act, 1938 and grant different insurance coverage to different individuals through group life insurance schemes. In group insurance the brevity of contract is between master policy holder and the insurer and master policy containing all the terms and conditions about insurance coverage which is issued to the master policy holder and are binding on all the insured members and the individual members of the master policy were issued certificate of insurance as evidenced of their membership of the group scheme if they fulfill the eligible criteria in terms of age, health etc. and the o.p. no. 4 issued a master policy no. 70000000310. This o.p. no. 4 never received an amount of Rs. 19,064/- from the loan account of the petitioner towards premium in the year 2006 and only received Rs. 5,087/- in the year 2012. In the instant case the deceased life assured has deliberately suppressed his material fact of his preexisting illness and hence the insurance coverage granted is void abinitio as per the terms and conditions of the policy and thus the policy was repudiated. The petitioners are not eligible to claim amount of Rs. 8 lakhs and Rs. 5,50,000/- and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.
- The o.p. no. 1 contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against the o.p. no. 1 submitting that the o.p. no. 1 deducted a sum of R s. 19,064/- from the loan amount of the borrower being account no. 30070767971 on 13.09.2006 towards State Bank Life Insurance Policy but the policy would not be processed as Narayan Chandra Borman did not deliver papers and also did not sign and the sum of Rs. 19,064/- which was deducted from the account on 13.09.2006 was credited back to his loan account on 17.12.2012 when Narayan Chandra Borman out of his free will consented to execute a fresh State Bank Life Insurance paying premium of Rs. 5,087/-. The o.p. no. 1 denied the allegations made against them and submitted that the petitioner filed a false case with malafide intention and the same be dismissed.
4. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues aretaken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of her case the petitioner filed affidavit for herself and on behalf of two minors and submitted that her husband took loan ofRs. 4,40,000/- from the S.B.I., Liluah Branch, Howrah, and the loan was covered by S.B.I. Group Insurance Scheme for which a sum of Rs. 19,064/- was deducted from the loan account of the husband, who died on 06.4.2-13 at Belur Sramajibi Swasthya Prakalpa Samity. In support of her case she has also filed the loan documents showing that as per terms of agreement the loan was to be repayed by 168 equal monthly installments ofRs. 4,680/- and her husband paid installments since 2006 and her husband expired on 06.4.2013 and when she approached the o.p. bank to adjust the loan against the insurance policy then her claim was repudiated stating that her husband made a false declaration in 2012 when a policywas started on payment of Rs. 5,087/-.She was astonished to know such facts when it was very much clear from the documentsthat the o.p. no. 1,SBI Liluah Branch, Howrah, deducted a sum ofRs. 19.064/- from theloan account of her husband towards S BI Life Insurance Policy but the bank did not act as per rule and neglected to pay the premium before the o.p. no. 4 and later on in 2012 the o.p. no. 1 bank got signed some policy papers by the husband of the petitioner opening a new policy and o.p. no. 4 denying such claim on the ground that the life assured gave a false declaration about his health. NarayanChandra Borman is no more to say actually what happened but the petitioner stating before the Forum that the loan was sanctioned by SBI Liluah Branch, Howrah, for which o.p. no. 1 deducted Rs. 19,064/- as one time premium and now the o.p. no. 1 cannot deny such policy as there was clear negligence on the part of the o.p. no. 1 who stated that in 2012 they credited the amount in favour of the loan account of the deceased husband of the petitioner by opening a new life insurance policy.
- This Forum heard the ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as the o.ps. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner took the loan from SBI Liluah Branch and the loan was insured and the premium was paid on 13.9.2006 amounting to Rs. 19,064/- as one time premium. Thus the loan being covered by the SBI Life Insurance Policy the same assured sum be adjusted with the due loan amount because her husband paid regular installments as could be noticed from the statement of account of said Narayan Chandra Borman. Ld. Counsel for o.p. nos. 1 to 3 submitted that they deducted the amount from the loan account of said Narayan Chandra Borman amounting to Rs. 19,064/- but the policy could not be proceeded as the deceased Narayan Chandra Borman did not sign policy documents and so a new policy was started in 2012 and there was false declaration by deceased Narayan Chandra Borman and so the policy was repudiated by o.p. no. 4 and the loan could not be adjusted against the policy amount.
- This Forumkeepin mind the submissions of the ld. counsels of both sides as well as considering the cases of the parties as came out of the averment of the petition as well as the written versions and also keeping in mind the terms and conditions of the policy documents finds that in the instant case the husband of the petition Narayan Chandra Borman took one housing loan from the o.p. no. 1 being SBI Lilush Branch on 13.7.2006 being loan account no. 30070767971 for purchasing a flat being flat no. 3A in the first floor of a building situated at Bally Municipality and the loan was taken as per agreement dated 13.7.2006 and the rate of interest was @ 9.25% p.a. an the loan was to be repaid by 168 equal monthly installments ofRs. 4,680/- and it is noticed from the statement of account issued by o. p. no. 1 in favour of the petitioner and same proved the fact that the petitioner’s husband went on repaying the loan installments since 10.09.2006. It is also noticed that the loan amount was covered by a SBI Life Suraksha Group Insurance Scheme for which o.p. n. 1 deducted a sum of Rs. 19,064/- from the loan account of the petitioner as is also noticed from the loan document. Thus it is crystal clear that the husband of the petitioner took the loan which was covered by SBI Life Policy and the husband of the petitioner expired on 06.4.2013 and thus the loan account being duly covered by SBI Life Insurance Policy and the petitioner is entitledthe due loan amount with the assured sum of the policy and in case of any non payment of policy premium the bank would held responsible. It was the duty of the bank officials to get the policy documents signed by the husband of the petitioner who is no more and there is none to speak on his behalf as to whether he signed such documents or not.Thus in the absence of said Narayan Chandra Borman it cannot be said that the policy could not be proceeded as the deceased did not sign the papers as is case of o.p. no. 1 and rather it can be said that the bank official neglected in doing their job by getting the signatures of the said Narayan Chandra Borman procured by them and getting the SBI Life Policy functioning duly as they deducted a sum of 19.064/- from the loan account of the said Narayan Chandra Borman on 03.09.2006.Their statement that said Narayan Chandra Borman got a fresh policy in 2012 wherein the premium was Rs. 5,087/- and the deducted sum ofRs. 19,064/- which was deducted on 13.09.2006 was again paid to the said loan account on 17.12.2012 and such facts in the absence of said NarayanChandra Borman is highly suspicious and is disbelieved by this Forum.
In view of above, this Forum finds that the petitioner succeeded in proving their case that they are entitled to get the loan amount adjusted against the assured sum of the policy and any latches therein would be compensated by the o.p. no. 1 who is solely responsible because the negligent act of o.p. no. 1 who deducted the premium amount of Rs. 19,064/- but did not deposit the same before the o.p. no. 4 is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1.
In view of above the claim case succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 5 of 2014 ( HDF 5 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. nos. 1 to 3, SBI and dismissed against o.p. no. 4 without costs.
The petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and the o.p. nos. 1 to 3 are directed to release the case property free from all emcumbrances by adjusting the due loan amount in connection with the loan account of said Narayan Chandra Borman and also the o.p. n. 1 to issue no due certificate and hand over the original deed and documents in favour of the petitioners which are lying in their custody as collateral security and also to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner and litigations costs of Rs. 20,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner would at liberty to put the order in execution and also the awarded sum carry interest @ 9% p.a. till recovery.
The complainants are at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period if same not complied.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
