1. The State Bank of India has filed this Revision Petition challenging the order of the M.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in Appeal No.299 of 2007. In the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum, Gwalior and granted relief to the Complainant. 2. The husband of the Complainant had purchased a house for ` 6.5 lacs in which ` 2.5 lacs was paid directly by him and the balance ` 4 lacs was financed as a loan by the Revision Petitioner. However, the loan amount actually sanctioned was ` 4.25 lacs and not ` 4 lacs. From the sanctioned loan, the Revision Petitioner disbursed a sum of ` 4 lacs directly to the Builder on 29.07.2004, towards the price of the house. Nearly, year and a half later, the borrower passed away on 10.02.2006. 3. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the loan of ` 4.25 lacs was taken by her husband to meet the requirement of ` 4 lacs for the purchased of the house and ` 25,000 towards SBI Life. It was to provide an insurance cover of `4.25 lacs to be used for repayment of the balance of the house loan, in the event of death of the borrower. In her affidavit before the District Forum, the Complainant had stated that her husband had completed all necessary documentation in this behalf. Her affidavit also stated that under an agreement got signed by her and her husband, 174 EMIs had been fixed at ` 4250 per month for the entire repayment of this loan of ` 4.25 lacs. The Revision Petitioner/ OP-1 had also debited ` 7253 toward insurance of the house and 10 EMI amounts of ` 4250 to his salary account till 28.02.2006. 4. The District Forum came to a conclusion that the husband of the Complainant had got loan of ` 25,000 sanctioned for insurance premium, but had taken no further action to get the insurance cover from OP-2/SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complaint was therefore, rejected by the District Forum. 5. The State Commission reversed the above order of the District Forum in the impugned order and directed the Revision Petitioner/OP-1 not to recover any amount towards loan, as the same has been satisfied under the insurance created concurrently with the loan for the house. 6. The Revision Petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission on the following grounds:- 1) Mere sanction of the loan of ` 25,000 does not mean that the insurance policy has been subscribed. In the period between sanction of the loan in 2004 and the death of the borrower in 2006, the matter of insurance policy was never taken up by the borrower with the bank. 2) The loan of ` 25,000 was sanctioned but never disbursed. The State Commission had failed to consider the fact that only ` 4 lacs has been debited to the account of the borrower. 3) There is no deficiency on the part of the Revision Petitioner in discharge of its obligation as banker. 7. In its order, the State Commission has relied upon the following documents:- a. The house Loan Application Form- Personal File of the applicant dated 25.6.2004 has clearly recorded that ` 25000 would be required for SBI Life, in addition to ` 6.5 lacs for the house. b. The Arrangement Letter- Housing Finance between the bank and the borrower, dated 28.07.2007 records that “The loan will be disbursed as under— Amount (Rs) i. SBI Life 25,000 ii. Payment to Builder 400,000” This document also shows that the EMI is fixed for the entire amount of ` 425,000. c. The Agreement to Create Mortgage of the Immovable Property dated 28.7.2004, clearly shows that the house property has been mortgaged in favour the Bank for ` 425,000 and not `400,000. 8. In the background of the above documents, the first plea raised by the RP/Bank cannot be accepted. The State Commission has rightly rejected it observing that the Bank cannot say that the deceased should have approached them for completion of formalities. After getting the mortgage for the entire amount and fixing the EMIs for recovery of the same, the Bank did not advise the borrower on any further formalities. 9. The second plea of the RP/Bank is in fact an evidence of failure on their part to complete the documentation, after having protected their interest. Moreover, no evidence has been produced before the fora below to support the claim that the loan was reduced to ` 400,000 from ` 425,000. 10. In our view, the conclusions drawn by the State Commission from the documents discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, clearly flow from them. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which can justify our intervention in terms of the provision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. | 
