1.       The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 09.07.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal Nos.183/2014, 185/2014 and 187/2014.

2.       Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA/8866/2014, an application for condonation of delay of 58 days has also been filed by the Petitioner. In view of the fact that the delay is not very large, in the interests of justice, IA/8866/2014 is allowed and delay condoned.

3.       Case of the Complainant is that on 16.12.2010 the Petitioner/Complainant obtained housing loan of Rs.20 lakhs from Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 State Bank of India. Instalment of the house loan were payable from his salary account with the SBI. On 23.02.2011, the Chief Manager, State Bank of India wrote a letter to the Complainant to attend a seminar, organized by Respondent No.2 Bank, in response to which Complainant attended the seminar. It was alleged that the Bank Manager got certain papers and cheques signed by the Petitioner/Complainant. In March, 2011, Respondent No.2 Bank opened another loan account No.31658807379 in the name of the Petitioner for Rs.2,18,300 and paid the entire amount to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd./Respondent No.1, without his consent. The Petitioner came to know of the said Insurance Policy in August, 2011 on receipt of a letter from Respondent No.2 about the outstanding loan amount. When the Petitioner approached Respondent No.2 for closing of the second loan account of Rs.2,18,300/-, he was told that action would be taken only after closing the SBI Life Insurance Policy. Though he applied for closure of SBI Life Insurance Policy, but the Policy was not closed. The Petitioner obtained information under RTI that SBI Life Insurance had refunded a sum of Rs.79,865/-, but no reply was given regarding forfeiting/non-refunding the balance account of Rs.1,38,435/-. Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondents/Opposite Parties, which was replied only by Respondent No.1/SBI Life Insurance stating that they had done the Insurance on the request of SBI, Rampur Branch, which is the Master Policy holder. Petitioner stated that he was not aware of this fact nor had opened any account with the said branch. Respondents did not refund the amount of Rs.1,38,435 and Rs.28,816/- was further deducted by them from his account. Claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner/Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint in the District Forum with following prayer: -

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that opposite parties be       directed to pay:

1. Rs.1,38,435/- withheld by the SBI Life Insurance.

2. Rs.28,816/- illegally deducted and close A/c No.31658807379.

3. Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and amount spent on medical treatment compensation.

4. Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.

5. Any other amount to which the Complainant is found entitled.”

    

   4.       Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 contested the Complaint by filing their written version. Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 in their joint reply admitted that the invitation for seminar was sent to the Complainant and all the respective customers. It was denied that Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 got signed blank papers and cheques signed by the Complainant. It was stated that the second loan account was opened by the Complainant, vide application dated 07.03.2011, to pay the premium of SBI Life Insurance. It was denied that the amount of Rs.28,816/- was deducted from the account of the Complainant during 26.08.2011 to 22.09.2012, rather the said amount was credited to the account of the Complainant.

   5.       Opposite Party No.3/SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its separate reply. It contended that the Complainant himself applied for Dhanraksha Plus LPPT Group Insurance Scheme and the Policy was issued to Opposite Party No.4/Respondent No.4 State Bank of India on 15.04.2011, on the basis of declaration and information furnished by the Complainant himself in the membership form. The Insurance cover was optional and the Complainant had applied for the same. The Policy was surrendered at the request of the Complainant, and surrender value of Rs.79,865 was paid to the Complainant through cheque dated 07.09.2012 as per terms & conditions of the Policy.

   6. District Forum, vide order dated 27.08.2013, dismissed the Consumer Complaint as not maintainable, with liberty to the Complainant to approach the Civil Court. Aggrieved by its order dated 27.08.2013, the Complainant filed an Appeal and the State Commission, vide order dated 07.11.2013, remanded the matter to the District Forum to decide the Consumer Complaint on merits in accordance with law.

   7.       On remand the District Forum, after hearing the parties and going through the record, allowed the Consumer Complaint, vide order dated 11.04.2014 and directed the Opposite Parties: -

“I]              To refund a sum of Rs.1,38,435/- being the balance                                   amount retained by OP-3 after the surrender of the                                     policy.

II                  to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental                              harassment, pain and agony suffered by the                                            Complainant due to the deficiency in service.

III]     to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.”

8.       Against the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed First Appeal No.185/2014, while Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 jointly filed First Appeal No.187/2014 and Opposite Party No.3 filed First Appeal No. 183/2014. State Commission, vide order dated 09.07.2014, allowed First Appeals No.183/2014 and 187/2014 filed by the Opposite Parties and dismissed First Appeal No.185/2014 filed by the Petitioner/Complainant and consequently dismissed the Consumer Complaint. Order of the State Commission reads as follows: -

“For the reasons recorded above, First Appeals bearing No.183/2014 filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.3 and 187/2014 filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 4  and 5 are allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned order, passed by District Forum, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint  filed by the complainant, before the District Forum, is dismissed with no order as to costs.

In view of the decision rendered in First Appeals No.183 of 2014 and 187 of 2014, First Appeal bearing No.185 of 2014 by the appellant/complainant, is dismissed with no order as to costs.”

9.       Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the instant Revision Petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record.

10.     Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that an Insurance Policy was purchased on behalf of the Petitioner by SBI, Rampur Branch, Himachal Pradesh without his permission or knowledge and the said branch was the master Policy holder. It was submitted that his signatures for purchase of the Policy were obtained by fraud.

11.     Learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 5 submitted that the Complainant himself opened second loan account bearing No.31658807379 to pay the premium of SBI Life Insurance Policy, vide application dated 07.03.2011. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Petitioner was not aware of opening of the said account. It was also submitted that Respondents No.2 to 5 were not concerned with the non-refund/forfeiture of the surrender value of the Policy and the issue concerned Opposite Party No.1/SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. It was further submitted that the amount of Rs.28,816/- was not deducted during 26.08.2011 to 22.09.2012 as alleged by the Petitioner, rather the said amount of Rs.28,816/- was credited to the account of the Petitioner.

12.     Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that the Petitioner himself had applied for Insurance Policy and the Policy was issued to the Master Policy holder on 15.04.2011 on the basis of declaration given by the Petitioner. It was further submitted that Respondent No.1/SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. received letter dated 21.06.2012 from State Bank of India, supported by the consent of the Petitioner, for surrender of the Insurance Policy. Thereupon the Policy was surrendered and the surrender amount of Rs.79,865/- was paid to the Complainant through cheque No.694976 dated 07.09.2012 as per terms and conditions of the Policy. Its receipt was duly acknowledged. It was submitted that since the Petitioner had surrendered the Insurance Policy and the surrender amount had been paid by Respondent No.1, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

13.               Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner took a housing loan of Rs.20 lakh from State Bank of India/Respondent No.2 and the monthly installments were to be deducted from his salary account. In March, 2011, Respondent No.2 Bank opened another loan account No.31658807379 of the Complainant for Rs.2,18,300 and paid the entire amount to SBI Life Insurance, Chandigarh, as he opted for Optional  Insurance Scheme for loan borrowers, after duly signing the proposal form dated 07.03.2011. Later, he expressed his inability to continue with the Policy and vide letter dated 20.07.2012 requested for closure of the Insurance Policy. On his request, the Policy was closed by Respondent No.1 and Rs.79,865/- refunded.

14.     The Petitioner contended that the second loan account No.31658807379 for Rs.2,18,300/- was opened without his consent. It is seen from the record that the Petitioner duly signed the application dated 07.03.2011 addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 22-C Chandigarh, for opening of loan account for Rs.2,18,300/-. It is abundantly clear from the application that the Petitioner had requested Respondent No.2 Bank to obtain Optional Insurance Scheme for housing loan borrower. He had also requested the Bank to grant him an additional loan of Rs.2,18,300/- to enable him to pay  the insurance premium for the said Policy. Petitioner/Complainant was employed with Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and being educated cannot claim ignorance of the contents of the application dated 07.03.2011 duly signed by him. The contention of the Petitioner that the loan account was opened without his consent does not, therefore, sustain.

15. The Petitioner also alleged that an amount of Rs.28,816/- was debited from his account and paid to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. from 26.08.2011 to 22.09.2012. The Petitioner, however, had not filed any documentary evidence in support of his allegation that an amount of Rs.28,816/- was debited from his account. On the other hand, Respondent No.2/State Bank of India filed affidavit of Mr. S.K. Gupta, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 22, Chandigarh before the State Commission, stating that no amount was paid to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. from 26.08.2011 to 22.09.2012, rather the said amount of Rs.28,816/- was credited to the account of the Petitioner. District Forum also held that the said the amount of Rs.28,816/- was credited to loan account No.31658807379 as was clear from the loan account statement produced by the Complainant himself. Thus, the contention of the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.28,816/- was debited from his account and paid to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. cannot be accepted.

16.               Regarding forfeiting/non-refunding the balance amount of Rs.1,38,435/- on surrender of the Insurance Policy, the Petitioner has not placed on record any evidence that Respondent No.1 had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. also stated that Respondent No.1 paid the surrender value of Rs.79,865/- in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The allegation of the Petitioner regarding forfeiture of amount of Rs.1,38,435/- by Respondent No.1, also does not stand.

17.               In view of the above, the State Commission rightly set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the Complaint. The Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.