These three revision petitions have been filed against the common order dated 21.10.2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as State Commission) passed in First Appeal Nos. 284/2009 and 332/2009.

2.      Brief facts of the case are  that Mr. Amit Wadhwa brother of complainantno.1 and son of the complainant no.2 took educational loan from State Bank of India/OP-1 and 3. The complainant also took the insurance policy no.15000012207 from OP-2, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. on the suggestion of OP-1 &3 for the period from 5.7.2004 to 4.7.2011. Unfortunately, on  4.4.2007, the insured Amit Wadhwa died in Australia in a road accident. On 21.5.2007, a claim for Rs. 8,00,000/- was lodged by Complainant No 1 with OP No.2 Insurance Company through OP No. 3 Bank but the same was denied on the ground that the policy being in a lapsed condition and therefore, the same was not payable. 

3.   The complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Chandigarh which was decided on 6.5.2009, ordering that OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay the sum assured of Rs.4 lacs alongwith accrued bonus, if any, after deducting the annual premia which had fallen due before April 2007 alongwith Rs. 4 lacs as double accident benefit. Since the OPs have acted in a most careless and deficient manner thereby delaying the claim of the complainant and harassing him unnecessarily, they shall also pay a   sum of Rs. 2  lakh as compensation for this harassment. The total amount of Rs.10 lacs plus accrued bonus, if any, alongwith Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation shall be paid to the complainants within thirty days of the receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 21.6.2007 (i.e. one month after the lodging of the claim) till payment is actually made to the complainant .

4.      Being aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, SBI/ OP-1 and 3 as well as SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd./OP-2 preferred separate appeals no.284/2009 and 332/2009 before the State Commission which were decided by a common order dated 21.10.2009 which partly allowed their appeal and modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that the direction regarding the payment of Rs.4 lacs as Double Accident Benefit is set aside.

5.    Hence, the present revisions by the Ops and the complainant.

6.     Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for OP-2 argued that the District Forum had wrongly allowed the accidental benefit alongwith the life insurance claim without any basis and that is why the appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission has modified the order of the District Forum and disallowed the accidental benefit of Rs.4 lacs, because there was  no premium paid for accidental benefit. The learned counsel further argued that in fact, the policy was only a life insurance policy and did not include any kind of accidental benefit etc. However, the State Commission has concluded that accidental benefit could have been availed for additional premium but no additional premium was paid by the complainant. Hence, this benefit cannot be allowed. The State Commission has finally ordered payment of life insurance amount of Rs.4 lacs jointly and severally by State Bank of India/OP-1 & 3 and SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd./OP-2.  The OP-2 agreed to pay Rs.4 lacs alongwith interest as ordered by the State Commission. However, OP-2 is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission so far as it relates to the compensation of Rs.2 lac which has been ordered to be paid to the complainant jointly and severally with SBI/OP1&3. When the full policy amount is being paid with bonus and interest, there should be no question of any further compensation to be paid to the complainant.

7.    The learned counsel of SBI/OP-1 and OP-3 stated that all the loan amount    was repaid in 2005 itself. He has availed loan of only Rs.99,000/- against the loan limit of Rs.4 lacs. No  loan amount was claimed later and the entire loan amount   was re-paid by paying the lump sum amount. It seems that the loan was only taken to prove his resources so that he could be granted visa. In fact, the State Commission has not looked into the question whether the policy will be indemnified even after the full loan amount was repaid. SBI/OP-1 and 3 has nothing to do with the policy and it had only advanced the educational loan to the son of the complainant. Thus, the order of the State Commission, so far it relates to SBI needs to be set aside.

8.      The complainant in person pleaded that policy in question or its terms and conditions were never supplied to the insured or the complainant. It is possible that the loaner bank may have received the policy as the premium was paid by the bank by deducting the same from the loan account. The  Insurance Ombudsman had allowed the claim for life insurance of Rs.4 lacs as well as the claim for accidental benefit of Rs.4 lacs. However, the OPs did not comply with the order of the Ombudsman and therefore, consumer complaint was filed.  While forwarding the claim form, even the SBI had forwarded the claim of Rs.8 lacs including the Rs.4 lacs for accidental benefit.  The SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd./OP-2 also forwarded the same  claim to its main office. Hence, by implication, the inclusion of the double accident benefit as per the policy is proved which is now being denied.

9.     In respect of the compensation, the complainant stated that he has suffered lot of mental agony and harassment by the OPs and therefore, the State Commission has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.2 lac. The complainant finally prayed that the order of the State Commission in respect of the compensation may be upheld and his revision petition may be allowed and accidental benefit of Rs.4 lacs may also be granted.

10.    I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have examined the record.

11.    The insurance company SBI Life/OP-2 in its written statement has claimed that the policy did not have any accident benefits attached to the policy. The learned State Commission has observed that accident benefits where applicable to the present policy based on the brochure of the policy. However, additional premium for accident policy was not deposited. The complainant was specifically asked whether he had deposited any additional premium for accident benefits, but he answered that the amount of premium was deducted from the loan account itself and therefore, he is not aware about the same.  The complainant has further stated that no policy was supplied to him as the policy was sent to the State Bank of India.  He is claiming the accident benefits on the ground that State Bank of India/ OP-1 and 3 had recommended his claim of Rs.8 lakhs which included Rs.4 lacks of the accident benefits.  The policy available on the  record does not show any accidental benefits and State Commission has already held that no additional premium was deposited for accidental benefits.  Thus, on the basis of the reply given in the written statement by the insurance company and the facts mentioned by the State Commission, I find that question of accident benefits involved in the present policy does not arise and the State Commission has rightly decided that accident benefits are not payable to the complainant.

12.  So far as the indemnification of the main life insurance policy is concerned, OP-2 has accepted that they have no objection in paying the amount of Rs.4 lakhs along with bonus and interest as per the policy and as ordered by the State Commission.  In this context, then no force remains in the appeal filed by the State Bank of India/OP-1. Otherwise also, the objections raised by the State Bank of India become redundant as they themselves have recommended the claim of insurance for Rs.8 lakhs. If they were not satisfied with the claim, they should not have recommended the same.

13.   The main grievance of SBI Life Insurance Company/OP-2 is that the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant for which there is no justification. In fact, the State Commission has only modified the order of the District Forum with respect of the accidental benefits and rest of the order of the District Forum remains the same. As per the District Forum order, compensation of Rs.2 lakhs has been awarded to the complainant for the harassment and mental agony caused by OPs. The facts of the case reveal that the State Bank of India was not regular in paying the premium under the policy, so that the policy went in a lapsed state with no fault of the complainant or the insured.  Similarly, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. /OP-2 also did not pay the amount ordered by the Banking Ombudsman on 8.8.2007. Hence, both the OPs have definitely caused a high degree of harassment and mental  agony to the complainant. It is true that the complainant in his complaint had demanded only Rs.1.5 lakh as compensation whereas the District Forum has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. Obviously, in the circumstances mentioned above, the complainant deserves a reasonable compensation. As the complainant has asked for a compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs only, he is entitled to this amount only. Hence, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission is to be modified to Rs. 1.5 Lakh only which shall be reasonable and   commensurate with the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

14.   Based on the above discussion, I find no merit in the R.P. No. 478/2010  filed by the State Bank of India /OP-1 and 3 and the R.P. No. 4487/2009  filed by the SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. except that the amount of compensation shall be treated as Rs.1.5 lakh instead of Rs.2 lakh as awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission. Similarly, based on the above examination, no merit is found in R.P. No.716 of 2010 filed by the complainant for allowing the accident benefits under the policy. Accordingly, the R.P. No. 716 of 2010 stands dismissed.  OP-1 & 3 and OP-2 are directed to comply with the order of the State Commission as amended by this order in respect of compensation within a period of 30 days.

15.    Parties to bear their own costs for these revision petitions.