B.Balamukund Rao v. M/S National Insurance Company Rep.By Its

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL WRIT PETITION No.5417 of 2017 DATE: 06.07.2017 Between:

B. Balamukund Rao ....Petitioner and M/s.National Insurance Company and others ....Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : Sri B. Balamukund Rao COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1 : Sri V. Sambasiva Rao COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2 : ---- COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (TS)

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL WRIT PETITION No.5417 of 2017 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) Complainant in C.D.No.476 of 2012 on the file of the Consumer Redressal Forum, Hyderabad, filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the said C.D. as confirmed in F.A.No.206 of 2014 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Telangana.

We have heard Sri Balamukund Rao, who appeared as party-in-person and Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

The brief facts relevant to the case are that the petitioner has obtained health policy from respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in 2010. As he holds an account with respondent No.2 bank, he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.4,751/- in the name of the bank for payment of premium. On receipt of the amount from respondent No.2 bank, respondent No.1 issued a policy dated 26.04.2010 covering the petitioner as well as his family members for a period of one year. The said policy was renewed from 26.04.2011 to 25.04.2012 on deduction of a sum of Rs.4,213/- towards premium. The petitioner however claimed that the said deduction and renewal were without his knowledge and consent. For the subsequent year

also i.e., from 26.04.2012 to 25.04.2013, the policy was further renewed upon respondent No.2 forwarding the premium amount to respondent No.1 insurance company. Alleging that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have acted illegally in deducting the premium and renewing the policy without his consent, the petitioner has filed the abovementioned C.D. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has inter alia taken the plea that the main grievance of the petitioner was against respondent No.2, who allegedly deducted the premium from his account without his consent for renewal of the insurance policy, and that it is the duty of respondent No.1 to issue policy on receipt of the premium amount from respondent No.2 bank. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it has stated that an amount of Rs.

4,213/- for renewal of insurance policy was deducted from the petitioner's account and thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter on 21.04.2012 to the effect that he does not want to continue his policy further and he accordingly requested the bank to return the amount, and that on 23.04.2012, the petitioner again addressed a letter cancelling his earlier letter, dated 21.04.2012 and therefore, the petitioner reconciled himself to the fact that the policy was renewed. On appreciation of the facts, the District Forum has dismissed the C.D.

"It can be seen that along with evidence affidavit, the Respondent No.1 filed copy of proposal form-cum-schedule for Baroda Health and also the statement of account of the Appellant for the period from 01.04.2011 to 08.01.2013 showing deduction of an amount of Rs.4,647/- as on 20.04.2011 towards the renewal of subject policy through cheque number 107769 and on 16.04.2012, an amount of Rs.4,734/- was deducted towards Baroda Health but there is no mention of any cheque number. This act on the part of Respondent No.2 is disputed by the Appellant stating that the same is deducted without instructions to him, without his knowledge and consent. The burden lies on the Respondent No.2 bank to establish that upon instructions of the policy-holder, they deducted the amount. To vouchsafe their contention, nothing is placed on record.

However, from Ex.A.5, it is clear that the Appellant had withdrawn the letter dated 21.04.2012 and wants to continue the policy. Hence, question of any deficiency of services may not arise." At the hearing, the petitioner has informed the Court that though he filed the C.D. for return of the premium amount for 2011-12 and payment of small compensation amount, having regard to the fact that the insurance policy was renewed for the subsequent year i.e. 2012-13, he is not interested in pressing for the relief he has claimed before the Consumer Forum. Instead, he has requested for issuance of directions to respondent No.2 to renew the policy from 2013 onwards.

In support of his submission, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah1.

Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that since the issue of renewal of policy from 2013 is not the subject matter of this writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in that regard.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has not been pressing for the relief claimed in C.D.No.476 of 2012, necessity of 1 (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 689

adjudicating on the correctness or otherwise of the orders of both the Fora below is obviated. As regards the request of the petitioner to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to renew the policy from 2013, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, the same is not the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition. The judgment in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board (supra) relied upon by the petitioner in support of his submission does not in any manner help him getting the relief sought by him. Paragraph 33 of the judgment, on which the petitioner placed reliance, reads as under:

"The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a Court of law.

The Court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, directs the authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged." The above reproduced paragraph in the judgment does not authorize any Court to grant an order beyond the scope of the relief claimed by a party who is not legally entitled to get the relief.

Admittedly, the issue relating to further renewal of the petitioner's insurance policy beyond 25.04.2013 is not the subject matter of the dispute in the present proceedings.

In the above view of the matter, without interfering with the orders of the Fora below, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy, if he has any grievance with regard to the renewal of insurance policy beyond 25.04.2013.

As a sequel to disposal of writ petition, WPMP.No.6584 of 2017 stands disposed of as infructuous.

___________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 6th JULY, 2017.

__________________ M.S.K. JAISWAL, J kvni