These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.01.2012, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeals, i.e., Appeal No. 141/2011, /s. Vijay Concerns versus State Bank of India & Anr.and Appeal No. 159/2011, nited India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus M/s. Vijay Concerns & Anr. vide which the order dated 10.02.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in complaint case No. 56/2010 was set aside. The District Forum vide their order had allowed the complaint filed by the present petitioner/complainant and ordered the United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as nsurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3.6 lakh to the complainant. The State Commission, however, allowed the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the complaint. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant, who is a contractor by profession, had initially availed a cash-credit limit of Rs.3 lakh from respondent no. 1/OP No. 1, State Bank of India in the year 2004, which was subsequently raised to Rs.9 lakh. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant is a single ownership firm whose proprietor is Sheetal Sahu. As per the complainant, the OP No. 1 Bank had taken the Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company/OP No. 2 for the security of the loan and paid the requisite premium and deducted the same from the account of the complainant. The policy issued by the Insurance Company is known as Shopkeeper Insurance Policy and was issued in the name of tate Bank of India Account M/s. Vijay Concerns After taking loan from the Bank, the complainant was constructing a bridge at Shivnath River, Gram Girri, District Rajnandgaon. During the construction of the bridge on 15.07.2009, the bridge which was constructed by the complainant was destroyed due to heavy rains and flood. The complainant informed the insurance company which appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The said surveyor submitted his report on 23.11.2009 and assessed the loss as Rs.3,73,942/-. However, the amount was not paid to the complainant by the Insurance Company taking the stand that the complainant had taken the Shopkeeper Insurance Policy, under which the company was not liable to pay damages for the bridge. The Insurance Company informed that the insurance had been done regarding the building material for the shop situated at Shakti Nagar. The complainant has alleged that it was the duty of the Bank to take correct insurance policy, as they had filled the proposal form themselves. No intimation was given to the complainant by the Bank while filling the proposal form. The policy was got renewed by the Bank from time to time. The complainant alleged that the Bank had committed deficiency in service by filling proposal form wrongly. The complainant demanded a sum of Rs.5,16,451/- for the loss suffered and Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment along with interest @18% p.a. from the OPs. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, directed that a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- should be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant for the loss suffered by him. Two appeals were filed before the State Commission one by the petitioner/complainant and other by the Insurance Company. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant and allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and held that both the Bank and the Insurance Company had not committed any deficiency in service, and hence the complainant was dismissed. It is against this order that the present petitions have been filed. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the policy in question was obtained from the Insurance Company by the Bank and they had filled the necessary proposal form. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the terms and conditions of the CC Loan saying that the entire building material kept at the construction sites was hypothecated to the Bank, and hence it should be covered by the insurance policy. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the written statement filed by the Bank before the District Forum, in which they have stated that the Insurance Company by mistake had issued the Shopkeeper Insurance Policy. Learned Counsel stated that it was within the knowledge of the Bank that Insurance Policy was wrongly issued; hence they should have got it rectified. Further, on the policy itself, it had been written that the business of the complainant was building material shop. The said building material was to be placed at the construction site only. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company stated that they had issued the policy, based on the proposal form submitted by them and it was a Shopkeeper Insurance Policy. 5. The learned counsel for the Bank submitted that it was the responsibility of the complainant to inform the OPs about the change of site of construction. In fact, the insurance policy had been taken by the complainant himself for the first time, but the Bank had only got it renewed from time to time. It was the duty of the complainant to have remained vigilant about the terms and conditions of the Policy. The Bank could not be blamed for any deficiency in service. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 7. In the copy of the greement for Cash Credit for Hypothecation of Goodsexecuted between the petitioner/complainant and the Bank, it has been stated in paragraph 5 as follows:- hat the said goods shall be kept at the borrower risk and expense in good condition and fully insured against loss or damage as may be required by the Bank. 8. It has been rightly observed by the State Commission in their order that as per this document, the obligation was on the petitioner/complainant to have the goods insured against loss or damage. Further, the petitioner /complainant was required to submit to the Bank regular stock statements with lists of insured articles duly verified. It may be true that in practice, the Bank had availed and submitted the proposal form and obtained the insurance policy on behalf of the complainant, but it was also the duty of the complainant to be vigilant about the terms and conditions of the policy and also to inform the concerned quarters about the exact place, where the building material was kept. In the absence of such information, the Insurance Company is well within its rights to say that the insurance was done only for shop at Shakti Nagar and it was a Shopkeepers Insurance Policy and hence they are not liable to make payment against the claims under the Policy. From the material on record, it is very clear that the place where the loss has occurred was not within the knowledge of the Insurance Company. Moreover, the Bank can also not be held liable for any deficiency in service, because it was the primary duty of the complainant/ petitioner to obtain the Insurance Policy and to have knowledge about its terms and conditions. 9. The State Commission while passing the impugned order have rightly placed reliance on the orders passed by the Honle Supreme Court in the case nited India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal [(2005) (1) CPR 64 (SC)] and in the case eokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd.[I (2009) CPJ 6 (SC)], according to which the rights and obligations of the parties are strictly governed by the policy of Insurance and no exception or relaxation can be made on the grounds of equity. Further, a similar view has been expressed by the Honle Supreme Court in the case of uraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Private Ltd. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.[(2010) 10 SCC 567], in which it has been observed by the Honle Supreme Court as follows:- he Courts should always try to interpret the ordsin the insurance contract as they have been expressed by the parties. It is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. The words used in the Insurance Contract must be given paramount importance. 10. In the light of these facts stated above, we do not find any merit in these petitions. There is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The revision petitions are, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld with no order as to costs.