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
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
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
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
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
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
