Case of the complainant/petitioner is that he along with his brother, took a loan of Rs.5 lakh from the respondent bank for construction of a house.  Respondent, while sanctioning loan, took mortgage of the property.  Brother of the petitioner died in an accident.  Petitioner filed the complaint alleging therein that as per terms of the agreement, respondent should have taken insurance policy covering the loan as well as the personal accident benefits to the complainant and his brother.  On being served, respondent took the stand that there was no clause in the agreement to take the policy covering personal accident benefit. 

District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that there was no proof or material on record to show that the life risk of the borrowers, i.e., the petitioner and his brother, was covered under the insurance policy.

Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that, in the agreement, there is no clause obligating the respondent to take a policy for covering the personal accident benefit as well.   He further states that, though there was nothing in writing, there was an oral understanding between the parties.  This stand cannot be accepted.

We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, as there was no clause in the agreement requiring the respondent to take a policy for personal accident benefit.  Dismissed