DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER1. This order shall decide both the above said revision petitions arising out of the same impugned order dated 13.07.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’), dismissing the appeal and holding the State Bank of Patiala as well as State Bank Life Insurance Co. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service. 2. Brief facts are that the complainant, Shri Lal Bachan and his wife, Smt. Sankishya Devi (since deceased) obtained a housing loan from State Bank of Patiala ( OP No. 1 ) and have submitted the proposal form to insure his own life in terms of master policy of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP No. 2). He paid one time single premium of Rs.10,618/-. His wife, Smt. Sankishya Devi was mentioned as his nominee. His wife died on 20.10.2015. The claim was made by her husband, which was repudiated by the insurance company. 3. Therefore, aggrieved by the alleged illegal repudiation, the complainant filed a complaint against OPs 1 and 2 before the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. 4. After hearing the parties, the District Forum held that State Bank of Patiala ( OP 1 ) committed act of negligence for not mentioning the name of wife of the complainant. The District Forum directed OP 2-SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay insured amount to OP 1. Also, directed OP 1 to refund any amount deposited by complainant after death of his wife alongwith interest @ 12 % p.a. Also, allowed Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as costs. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the State Bank of Patiala, OP 1 filed first appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the SBI Life insurance Company filed instant revision petitions. 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that his wife was main borrower. The master policy was issued by the insurance company to the Bank for the insurance coverage to loan availed by complainant. The insurance company will pay the loan amount after the death of the insured. 8. Learned counsel for OP 1/petitioner vehemently argued that the policy was master policy, therefore, his wife was not the first borrower. Counsel further submitted that SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. had issued the policy and inadvertently has mentioned the name of complainant as borrower. The name of Smt. Sankishya Devi as the first borrower did not figure in the said policy. 9. The Group Insurance Coverages are granted to the members of Group through the Group Administrator, as such, the bank whose account holders are individual constituting the group. For the master policy, the premium will be sent by the Bank to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Learned counsel for OP further submitted that the State Commission dismissed the appeal only on the point of delay, without considering the merits. 10. We have perused the impugned order and observations made by the State Commission. The State Commission observed as under: “It is established on record that name of wife of complainant Sankishya Devi who was the first borrower of the loan was not entered by mistake by the OPs. Further, the case of the complainant covers under condition No. 4 of the policy as fully detailed in the impugned order by the learned District Forum. As such the deficiency in service is duly proved on record on behalf of the OPs for rendering deficiency service. In this view of the matter, we have no reason to differ with the view taken by the District Forum. 11. We have perused condition No. 4 of the General Conditions of the Insurance Policy, which reads as under: “4. In case of joint borrowers, each joint borrower is eligible to take the insurance cover for the full loan amount subject to he/she fulfilling the eligibility criteria and signing the Good health-cum-Consent letter separately and fulfilling to the satisfaction of the company, the medical requirements, if any, as prescribed by the Company and on paying the appropriate premium. In the vent of death of either or any of the joint borrowers, the Company will pay the Grantees the Sum Assured determined as per the Scheme. The unexpired portion of the single premium paid by the surviving borrowers(s) would be remitted after deduction of the administrative expenses through the grantees and the cover stands extinguished.” 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, in our view, the OP 1/petitioner was at fault, on its own peril and negligence, the consumer should not suffer any more. Therefore, we dismiss both the revision petitions with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The petitioner is directed to comply the entire order within 45 days otherwise it will carry further interest @ 10% per annum from the date of pronouncement of this order. | 
