JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the petitioner present.  Arguments heard.

2.      The complainant No. 1, Smt. Kavita Sharma, wife of Shri Vijay Sharma, since deceased, and Shri Vijay Sharma, both of them took loan in the sum of Rs.9,65,000/- on 27.10.2005 for construction of house form Union Bank of India, opposite party No. 1.  In order to ensure that loan taken stands duly protected, opposite party No. 1 had made arrangement that the loanee should get membership from SBI Life Super Suraksha Group Life Insurance Scheme of SBI Life insurance Company Ltd., opposite party No. 2.  For this purpose, requisite insurance premium was debited from the account of the customer and remitted to the petitioner, opposite party No. 2 for getting insurance protection. 

3.      It was stipulated in the insurance policy that if death of the customer takes place before repayment of the entire loan then the petitioner would repay the entire outstanding loan under the aforesaid insurance policy.  The complainant No. 1 and her husband were granted membership on receipt of Rs.1,26,252/- towards insurance premium.  This amount was debited on 15.12.2005 from the joint account of the Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma who passed away on 22.7.2008.  Smt.  Kavita  Sharma  and her son  Vivek Sharma,

complainant No. 2 contended that rest of the amount should not be taken but their request was not conceded by both the opposite parties.  Therefore, they filed a complaint before the District Forum.  The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed both the opposite parties to grant insurance benefits as per rules assuming that the insurance policy was duly granted to the complainants.  The opposite party No. 1 was directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain and Rs. 1000/- towards costs of the complaint.  Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred before the State Commission.  The State Commission also dismissed the appeal.

4.      Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No. 2 vehemently argued that it had returned the amount on the same day as is apparent from the statement issued by Union Bank of India, opposite party No. 1, wherein, the sum of Rs.1,26,252/- was remitted back in the account of Vijay Kumar Sharma.  Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently further argued that the said amount was sent back because it did not carry full particulars of the proposal form.  The age of the deceased was not disclosed.

5.      The crux of the matter is, whether Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma was aware of the fact that the said amount was returned in his account.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that they did not post any letter either to the Union Bank of India or deceased Shri Vijay Kumar as to why the said money was being returned or that the said money was being returned.  This action of the petitioner/SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. is arbitrary,  despotic and capricious.  Learned counsel for the petitioner clarified that he did not argue like this.  He argued that he could not produce the said particulars.  It comes to the same thing.  The case is lingering for the last five years but the relevant documents were not produced for the reasons best known to the petitioner.  The same were not even produced with this revision petition.  It appears that the petitioner is suppressing the facts and has not come to the court with clean hands.  Legal notice was given by the complainants on 24.10.2009.

6.      It is surprising to note that Union Bank of India sent a letter to Smt. Kavita Sharma on 12.9.2009 which is reproduced as follows:

“We hereby inform you, that as per the directives of Insurance Co. proposer is advised to give proof of

Date of Birth, but it has not produced at the time of insurance that is why this is not materialized as per the record.  This is for your kind information please.”

7.      There is not even an iota of evidence which may go to show that this information was sent to the deceased by either of the parties prior to death of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma.  Moreover, as held by both the fora, there was no column for writing the age of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma.  The proposal form was withheld and it did not see the light of the day.  It is clear that the opposite parties want to keep the material facts under the hat. 

8.      In their written statement, the opposite party No. 2 in para 10 mentioned that:

“……. The O.P. No. 2 has not even accepted the initial deposit.  The proposal along with the DD was returned to the proposer through the office of O.P. No. 1 because the basic and essential requirement of DOB proof was not submitted along with the proposal.”

9.      There is no evidence, worth the name, that the insurance amount was sent back.  No communication was received by Shri

Vijay Kumar Sharma during his life time.  It was the basic duty of the SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. to return the amount and give the reasons to the proposer as well as bank why it was being sent back.  The non-mention of date of birth has got exiguous value as was discussed by this Commission in Anand Kumar Kejariwal vs. LIC of India & Anr., II (2011) CPJ 249 (NC) referred by the State Commission in its judgment.  It is clear that PW-1 and PW-2 were working in cahoots while committing the above said deficiency in this case.  It is also not clear that the amount of Rs.1,26,252/- was sent back on the same day by the opposite party No. 2.  Mere debit and credit entries without the name of sender proves nothing.  That is not clear from the statement of account.  However, the District Forum was pleased to hold:

“Further on perusal of bank statement dated 18/02/2010 it is clear that for the purpose of grant of insurance one time payment of premium was debited to the account of late Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma (whose death took place on 22/07/2008) and thereafter on 01/02/2010 the premium was remitted back in the bank account and as such the opposite parties refused to grant insurance cover to

the deceased life assured which according to us is deficiency in service.”

10.    Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that this is a mistake.  It is also surprising to note that the petitioner did not produce any evidence in writing  that the said money was returned on the same very date or any documentary proof in this connection.  They are just depending on the statement of account by Union Bank of India which does not prove its case, but of its own, it has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence.  The bank should have asked why the money was returned but there is no such communication

11.    The revision petition is lame of strength, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.