Telangana High Court
State Bank Of India Life Insurance ... vs Shujauddin Ahmed Jeddy, ... on 22 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No. 684 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order dated 16.06.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.30815 of 2010 consequent to the allowing of review WPMP.No.24422 of 2011.
2. Heard Mr. G. Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant.
3. None appears for the respondent.
4. The case of the appellant is that the respondent herein is the brother of late Shri Zaheeruddin Ahmed Jeddy {hereinafter referred to as the Deceased Life Assured (DLA)}. The appellant launched SBI Life - Horizon, a Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy. The DLA applied for a policy and a policy bearing No.18006546807 was issued with the date of commencement as 08.05.2006 for the sum assured of Rs.1,20,000/- with an annual premium of Rs.12,000/-. The DLA was issued the policy after payment of Rs.12,000/-
CJ & JAK, J 2 W.A.No.684 of 2011 towards premium and the brother of the DLA i.e., the respondent herein was shown as his nominee. The DLA died on 15.10.2007.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the DLA suffered from mental illness and was under
treatment and this material fact was concealed while the policy was taken, and as the insurance policy being a contract of utmost good faith, the DLA was bound to disclose these facts and suppression of such material facts is fatal to the appellant insurance company. By a letter dated 12.12.2008, the policy stood repudiated for suppression of the material facts.
6. Aggrieved by the repudiation letter dated 12.12.2008, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad, and the same was registered as Consumer Case No.66 of 2009. The District Consumer Forum dismissed the said C.C. vide order dated 09.04.2009. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order of the District Consumer Forum, the respondent filed F.A.No.381 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. The said F.A. was dismissed by the CJ & JAK, J 3 W.A.No.684 of 2011 Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated 22.11.2010. Against the said order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the respondent had to avail further remedy of approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The respondent instead of approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission filed Writ Petition No.30815 of 2010 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.06.2011 allowed the said Writ Petition by directing the appellant insurance company to pay the amount covered by the insurance policy to the respondent within a period of two weeks.
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the DLA while taking the policy should have disclosed the material fact that he was suffering from the mental illness and was under treatment. It is the discretion of insurance company to issue the insurance policy. When material facts are suppressed while taking the insurance policy, the amount of sum assured need not be paid, as such, the CJ & JAK, J 4 W.A.No.684 of 2011 respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the insurance policy. It is further contended that as the DLA suppressed the material fact, the appellant insurance company repudiated the insurance policy.
8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and that the subject matter of the Writ Petition is contractual in nature and Writ Petition is not maintainable.
9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the issue whether the appellant insurance company is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India would be adjudicated in an appropriate proceedings. Suffice to state that the respondent is bound by the orders dated 09.04.2009 and 22.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad, and the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, respectively. Two successive authorities, after going into the CJ & JAK, J 5 W.A.No.684 of 2011 entire set of facts and circumstances, have held that the insured herein has not disclosed the material fact voluntarily and hence, the insurer has repudiated the claim. Authorities have also held that suppression of material fact has led to the repudiation of the policy. This Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot sit in appellate jurisdiction and go on a fact finding mission. Both the authorities have held that the insured suppressed material fact of ailment and the insurer was right in repudiating the claim. This Court holds that such finding of the authorities below is based on appreciation of entire set of facts and sees no ground for interference. The respondent had an alternative remedy of approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the law. The respondent should have approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
10. In view of the above said discussion, the order dated 16.06.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. The respondent is not entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant insurance CJ & JAK, J 6 W.A.No.684 of 2011 company with the Registry and is at liberty to avail the remedies as per law.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 22nd NOVEMBER, 2023.
kvni