The Revision Petitioner, State Bank of India (herein after referred to as RP/OP) has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission against concurrent orders of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula. The District Forum has held the RP/OP responsible to give the Complainant the benefit of insurance cover under SBI Life. The order of the District Forum has been confirmed by the State Commission. In the impugned order, the Commission has reproduced the loan sanction letter from the Branch Manager, SBI to the borrower, which clearly showed that a loan of Rs.12425/- was additionally sanctioned as ‘Amount of SBI Life Cover’, together with the house loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and held that:-
“The sanction letter, Ex.C-I reproduced above clearly indicates that alongwith the housing loan of Rs.2,50,000/-, another Rs.12,425/- was also sanctioned to provide life insurance cover to the borrower. If the officials of OP did not extend the life cover, certainly they were deficient in providing efficient service to the borrower/complainant. We find that District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. No ground to interfere in the impugned order.”
2. The record submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner has been carefully perused. We have also heard Shri S.L.Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner/State Bank of India at length. Thereafter, the matter has been considered for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. For a proper appreciation of the case of the revision petitioner, we find it necessary to briefly refer to the facts of the case. The husband of the Complainant had applied for a housing loan, which was sanctioned by the OP on 16.4.2008. The communication in this behalf sent by Branch Manager, SBI showed that housing loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- was sanctioned together with Rs.12,425/- towards SBI Life Cover. The loan carried interest at 10.25% and was repayable in 180 months. Rs.2,50,000/- was disbursed to the borrower and the remaining sanctioned amount of Rs.12,425 was not disbursed. Borrower, Rakesh Kumar died on 15.9.2008. The bank was informed and was requested for details of the insurance cover. Allegedly, no details were given and the complainant was threatened that the balance of the loan would be recovered from her. In the written response before the District Forum, it was contended on behalf of the State Bank of India that the scheme of SBI Life Group Insurance Policy is optional. ‘The husband of the complainant has been advised by the opposite party to take the policy but the husband of the complainant has refused to take the SBI Life Group Insurance Policy.’
4. The main ground of challenge to the impugned order is that “the mere optional sanction of the loan to subscribe the Life Insurance Policy, cannot be considered that the Life Insurance Policy has been obtained”. It is also contended that it was for the borrower to apply for insurance cover by completing the necessary formalities. It is further alleged that the borrower did not execute the necessary documents for subscribing to the life insurance policy, availing the loan of Rs.12425. In this behalf, learned counsel for the RP/OP was repeatedly asked to explain why should the bank have sanctioned a sum of Rs.12425/- together with the house loan, showing it as amount towards SBI Life, if the borrower had not even exercised the option to subscribe to the SBI Group Insurance cover. Learned counsel merely argued that the amount was sanctioned, by the bank but no action was taken by the borrower, late Rakesh Kumar, to apply for the insurance cover and utilize the amount. This reply defies logic totally.
It is our considered opinion that the OP/RP could not have sanctioned the additional amount of Rs.12425/-, unless the borrower had already agreed to have the house loan covered under life insurance. Exercise of such option must logically precede the sanction of loan for payment of the premium amount. It cannot be the other way around. If the fact, as claimed by the RP/OP, was that the SBI Life coverage option was not exercised by the borrower, there could have been no question of anticipatory sanction of a very specific loan amount of Rs.12425/- towards premium for the insurance cover.
5. Secondly, it is contended by the revision petitioner that the borrower had refused to take the SBI Life Group Insurance policy. The record submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner does not support this contention. There is nothing to show what action was taken by the bank, in the background of the alleged refusal or non-utilization of the amount sanctioned for payment of insurance premium. There is nothing on record to show that the borrower was even addressed or advised in this behalf. There is nothing to show if any action was taken by OP/RP, in the period of five months between sanction of the loan and death of the borrower, to either to have this amount of Rs.12425/- utilised or to cancel the sanction itself, on account of failure or refusal of the borrower to utilize it. Moreover, if all action for securing coverage under the SBI Life was required to be taken by the borrower himself, as alleged, why was the sanctioned amount of Rs.12425/- not released to him simultaneously with the house loan of Rs.250,000/-. We therefore have no hesitation in rejecting this contention on the ground of complete absence of supporting evidence.
6. In the light of the above, we hold that the State Commission has made a correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The revision petitioner has utterly failed to make out any case against the impugned order in FA No. 430 of 2010. The revision petition is consequently dismissed for want of merit. No orders as to costs. |
