SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Butu Harijan

PRESENT revision petition has been filed against order dated 23.09.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttak (for short as ?State Commission?). Vide impugned order, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of this case are that respondent /complainant?s father had insured his life for Rs. 1,00,000/- with the petitioner/opposite party, vide policy No.140167462004 and the date of commencement is 22.10.2009, whereas date of maturity is 22.10.2024. During the life time of insured he had paid upto date premium. On 19.5.2010, father of respondent died to diearrhea, for which respondent being the nominee of the above policy lodged claim before Zonal Manager of the petitioner on 4.2.2011. Till date, petitioner has not settled the claim of the respondent, which amounts to deficiency in service.

Petitioner in its written statement has stated that father of respondent was covered under the said policy. However, the claim must be intimated to the company by notice in writing. In the event of death claim under the policy, following supporting documents are required to be submitted to the company along with the claim intimation 1) Original policy document, 2) original death certificate from Municipal/local authorities, 3) claim forms duly filled in 4) certificate from the physician who last attended the life assured along with the hospital reports, 5) police Panchnama & FIR copy etc. where applicable. In the instant case, original policy document, medical attendants report, all past treatment papers are required to process the claim. The admissibility or otherwise of the claim can be decided only after the receipt of the above said requirements. If the documents do not support the claim, the petitioner will be within their rights to decline the claim. This complaint is premature and there is no deficiency in service.

DISTRICT Forum, vide its order dated 10.06.2011, held that there is deficiency in service by the petitioner and passed the following order:- "From the records it is seen that, the complainant has already submitted the original policy bond and death certificate with claim form to the OP. The date of commencement of the policy is 22/10/2009 and the insured died on 19/05/2010. The date of maturity of the policy is 22/10/2024. The life assured is entitled to get the death benefit. The OP stated to have not satisfied with the documents filed by the complainant. They could have obtained further necessary information from the physician who last attended the life assured along with medical reports. They want to delay the matter to harass the complainant. In our view there is deficiency in service by the OPs. Hence, we ordered that; "The opposite party is directed to settle the claim of the complainant immediately with 10% intert p.a. from the date of claim. Besides they are directed to pay Rs. 2000/- (Two Thousand ) towards the cost of this litigation to the complainant. All the amounts should be paid with in 30 days of dispatch of this order, failing which the total amount will carry 10% interest p.a. after the lapse of the said period"

Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the State Commission. The impugned order reads as under; "This First Appeal came for admission on 21.9.2011. When the matter was called to be taken up for hearing on admission, nobody appeared for the appellant although the name of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appeared in the cause list. No mention was also made on behalf of Mr. R. C. Mohanty, learned counsel for adjournment of the matter to some other date. However, to afford another chance to the appellant/learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we had directed for listing of the mater today, i.e., 23.9.2011 for hearing on admission. Today, when the mater was called, nobody appeared for the appellant nor is any mention made on behalf of Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for adjourning the matter to any future date on any ground. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to adjourned the matter further. As such, we reject the appeal nemo for non prosecution"

IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that on 21.9.2011 arguing counsel could not appear before the State Commission due to illness and as such adjournment was sought. Thereafter, on 23.9.2011 also, arguing counsel could not appear and as such the appeal was dismissed in default. So, there is no decision on merits in this case. It is also contended that the District Forum wrongly directed the petitioner to settle the claim when respondent has not supplied the complete documents to the petitioner. It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited.

HON?ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ; "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

IN the light of above principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, it is to be seen as to whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order or not? As per findings of the District Forum quoted above, it is manifestly clear that respondent has submitted relevant documents to the petitioner.

As per impugned order, when appeal came up for admission before the State Commission on 21.9.2011, no body appeared for the petitioner. However, to afford another chance to the petitioner, State Commission directed the matter to be listed on 23.9.2011 for hearing for admission. Even on 23.9.2011, nobody appeared for the petitioner and as such the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution.

THUS, it is apparent from the record that for two consecutive dates no body appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the State Commission, when its appeal came up for hearing. However, in the revision petition petitioner has taken the plea that on 21.9.2011, due to illness of conducting counsel, adjournment was sought by one of his friend and as such the matter was listed on 23.9.2011 and on 23.9.2011, the counsel had gone to Delhi for treatment and as such he could not appear before the State Commission on 23.09.2011.

THE pleas taken in the revision petition are an after thought. Admittedly, on 21.9.2011, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner nor any adjournment was sought on the ground that arguing counsel is ill. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Even on merits, petitioner has no case in view of the finding of the facts given by the District Forum that, respondent has supplied all the relevant documents to the petitioner. Thus, there is no merit in the present revision petition and same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the said costs within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

LIST on 10th February, 2012 for compliance.