1. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.--Petitioner, is an Insurance Company having its Head Office at Karachi and various branches in the country. Petitioner also has affiliation/arrangement with foreign insurers and reinsurers. According to the petitioner, during the normal course of its business, it issued Fire Insurance Policy favouring the respondent (National Bank of Pakistan) as Mortgagees and M/s. Bela Ghee Mills Limited as Mortgagors in respect of the stock in the factory premises of Bela Ghee Mills Limited situated at SITE Lasbella, Balochistan, in the sum of Rs.26 million.
2. In April 1991, the petitioner received intimation of loss of the insured stocks due to fire and, on receipt of such information, the petitioner appointed two Surveyors, licensed by the Government under the Insurance Act, to investigate the claim. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Surveyors undertook the survey, visited the site, asked for the details of the documents and other relevant information from the insured and, after completion of the survey, submitted a detailed joint survey report dated 8-9-1991, according to which, there was no evidence of loss, as claimed, and as such the surveyors did not recommend settlement of the claim, but, without prejudice to the liability of the petitioner, they assessed the loss at Rs.414,830. According to the petitioner, in the light of the said report of Surveyors, petitioner repudiated the claim by their letter dated 9-10-1991.
3. Further, correspondence was exchanged between the parties, but the petitioner maintained that in view of the findings of the Surveyors, they were unable to entertain the claim. According to the petitioner, by letter dated 3-4-1993, National Bank of Pakistan asked the petitioner-company to settle the said claim within seven days, failing which, it was threatened that the Bank would delist the petitioner from its list of Insurance Companies. The petitioner protested against the said threat- by letter dated 11-4-1993, but, after that there was no response from National Bank of Pakistan. The petitioner, however, were surprised to. Read, in a daily newspaper in June 1993, a news item to the effect that National Bank had delisted the petitioner-company from its approved list of Insurance Companies.
4. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action of National Bank of Pakistan of removing the name of the petitioner-Insurance Company from its list of approved Insurance Companies. The following grounds have been taken in the memo of petition in support of the case of the petitioner that the action of the Bank is illegal:-- "(i)The petitioners having proceeded, in accordance with the recommendations of the licensed Surveyors, as permitted by the Insurance Act, 1938, are within their rights not to settle the claim.
5. Therefore, it is unlawful on the part of the respondent to penalize the petitioners for abiding by the law and the terms of the contract of insurance.
6. (ii)It is the client's discretion to go to any Insurance Company to take out an Insurance Policy. As long as the Insurance Company is registered under law and carrying out its business in accordance with law, it is arbitrary on the part of the respondent to refuse to accept , an Insurance Policy issued by such Insurance Company.
(iii) The impugned directive of the respondent tantamount to illegal duress and is not maintainable.
(iv) The respondent is acting on the impugned directive without applying its own mind to the issue involved therein. There being no proper application of mind on the part of the respondent. Its refusal to accept the petitioners' business is also unlawful and arbitrary.
(v) That the respondent being a statutory corporation is bound to act in a responsible manner. The present action is clearly male fide and intended to cause loss/damage to the petitioner. In fact the petitioners have suffered immense loss in reputation as a result.
(vi) That the respondent has acted in a most arbitrary and capricious manner in delisting the name of the petitioner: We heard the arguments of Mr. Liaquat Merchant, learned counsel for the petitioner, . And Mr. Balal A. Khwaja, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. On conclusion of the arguments, on 10-8-1993, the petition was dismissed in limine. Reasons for our short order are given herein.
7. Before us, the following contentions were raised by Mr. Liaquat Merchant, learned counsel for the petitioner: (i)The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that action of delisting has been taken without any reference or notice to the petitioner and this contention was also noticed in the order dated 19-7-1993 calling for comments from National Bank of Pakistan. However, the correspondence exchanged between the parties shows that the petitioner was aware of the stand taken by the respondent Bank. The correspondence shows that the petitioner had been asked to re-examine the matter and then after passage of sufficient time, the petitioner was told that in case, needful was not done, the name of the petitioner would be delisted. Contention on behalf of the petitioner that action has been taken without any reference or notice to the petitioner is, therefore, without any basis.
8. (ii)Petitioner is an Insurance Company and has to act in accordance with the laws and practices, applicable to insurance claims and, under section 44-A of the Insurance Act, 1938 no Insurance Company is allowed to pay any claim unless it is surveyed, assessed or adjusted by-' Insurance Surveyors, holding certificate under the Insurance Act. According to Mr. Liaquat Merchant, as the Surveyors did not recommend settlement of the claim on the ground that there was no evidence of loss, as claimed, the petitioner-company could not allow the claim. According to Mr. Liaquat Merchant, if the respondent Bank was not satisfied with the findings/recommendations of the Joint Surveyors, appointed by the petitioner, they should have availed of the remedies provided under the law. In this connection, reference was made to section 44-B of the Act, which provides that, if in any case, the Controller of Insurance has reason to believe that an Insurance Surveyor has given a false report or has grossly over assessed or under assessed a loss or has made the adjustment of loss in a grossly unjust manner, he may direct the insurer to arrange for another survey of that loss through any other surveyor or surveyors approved by him. The argument was that National Bank of Pakistan, not being satisfied with the report of the Joint Surveyors, could have approached the Controller of Insurance for appointment of another Surveyor for survey of loss but this was not done, instead, the petitioner was blacklisted.
9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no merit in the contention. Correspondence was being exchanged between the parties for a long period and copies of a few relevant documents were not attached to the memo of petition but along with the comments, which had been called for from the respondent, copies of some documents have been filed. From the letters of the respondent-bank, addressed to the petitioner Insurance Company, it follows that on the report of the joint Surveyors, detailed comments were made by the Bank and request was made to re-examine the decision to repudiate the claim made by the petitioner in the light of the factual position contained in the explanatory notes of the respondent. A reply was received from the petitioner along with fresh comments of the Surveyors but the respondent-bank replied stating that Surveyors had avoided to give reply or make comments in respect of the points raised on behalf of the respondent-bank. The petitioner, however, stuck to its decision and did not agree for re-examination of the claim.
10. Respondent-bank not appreciating the reluctance of the petitioner Insurance Company to re- examine the claim, sent a final notice to the petitioner and then delisted the petitioner from its approved list.
11. In our view, petitioner has no right under the law to require the respondent to maintain the name of the petitioner on its approved list. The petitioner, having no vested right in this regard, is not entitled to the relief A claimed in this petition. Section 44-A of the Insurance Act does not confer any right on the petitioner that its name should remain on the approved list of Insurance Companies.
12. Reliance on the aforesaid provision for claiming relief a in this Constitutional petition is misconceived.
(iii) It was argued that the action of the respondent was mala fide, unreasonable and arbitrary.
13. Petitioner has not been able to establish that it was so.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition was dismissed in limine