Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: Sri B.G.K.Achary & Associate Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
For O.P 1: &.2: Sri S.K.Agrawal, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
For OP No.3 & 4: Sri N.K.Pradhan, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
JUDGMENT
The facts of the complaint in brief is that the complainant’s husband late Suratha Chandra Pradhan had availed a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Op no.1 Bank. The Op Bank debited Rs.5147/- for SBI Life Insurance from the loan account of the complainant and as per the scheme if the beneficiary dies the loan will be waived but the OP Bank has not waived out the loan amount. The SBI Life has refused to waive loan amount as they have not received the premium amount .The OP Bank took plea that they have send the premium to SBI Life. Finding no other option the complainant filed this complaint and prayed to direct the OP Bank to waive the loan amount and award compensation and cost of litigation against the Ops. Hence, this complaint.
Being noticed, the Opp.Parties appeared through their respective Counsels and filed their written version inter alia denying their entire allegations on all its material particulars.
It is submitted by the Opp.Party No. 1 & 2 that the complainant late Suratha Chandra Prdhan had availed housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Opp.Party No.1 Bank and to secure any untoward incident he had as signed a proposal for Rin Raksha Policy and for this an amount of Rs.5147/- has been debited from the account of the deceased and the Opp.Party No.1 issued a Demand Draft of Rs.5147/- in favour of SBI Life on dt.29.03.2016 and on the very day handed over the draft along with the proposal to the BDM Pawan Kumar Singh of SBI Life but it is very surprise to mention here that after the death of the borrower when the petitioner claims for closer of the loan account and on receiving the application the OP No.1 forwarded the same to the Opp.Party No.3 for settlement of claim of the deceased but to utter surprise the OP No.3 replied that they have not received the proposal form nor the draft and the policy has not been issued in favour of the deceased borrower and expressed their inability to settle the claim. Due to latches and mishandling of the documents by the authorized person of the Opp.Party No.3 the complainant should not suffer and as such the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation.
The Opp.Party No.3 & 4 submitted that the OP 3 & 4 are not aware of the loan transactions between the deceased and OP 1 & 2 deduction of amount from the account of the complainant . As per records the OP No.3 & 4 have not received any premium amount or membership form to cover loan account No.3563891301 and no insurance cover was granted on the life of the deceased and as such there is no liability on the part of the Op No.3 & 4 to pay any amount to the complainant.
FINDINGS
On perusal of the complaint , written version, documents relied on by the parties and after hearing argument the main points for consideration is :
- Whether the Ops are deficient in service ?
- Whether the complainant is entitle to get the insurance benefit under Rin Rakshya Scheme and if so, which Opposite Parties are liable to pay the amount ?
It is admitted case of the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 and also the document filed in this case is that the husband of the complainant had taken house building loan from Karlapada State Bank to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- which was paid on installment basis. The 1st installment was debited from the account of the complainant on 19.03.2016. The above loan was secured by the Rin Rakshya Policy and the Bank debited Rs.5147/- from the account of the complainant toward his insurance premium on dt.29.03.2016 which was handed over to the agent of the Opp.Party No.3 & 4 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in shape of Demand draft. The Opp.Party No.1 & 2 have admitted in their written version and also argued that the draft had been handed over to BM, Pawan Kumar Singh of SBI life Insurance in presence of Bank staff R.C. Naik and Jayadev Naik.
The Opp.Party No.1 & 2 also averred that after the death of the insured when the complainant came to the bank to close the loan account as the loan as secured under RIN Rakshya Schem, the Op No.1 forwarded the claim to the Opp.Party No.3 for settlement of the same. The Opp.Party No.3 & 4 as discussed denied to settle the claim on the ground that there is no insurance policy in the name of the husband of the complainant and also they have not received any premium in shape of Bank Draft for issuance of RIN Rakshya Policy in favour of Suratha Chandra Pradhan.
From the above, we are of the opinion that since premium for the RIN Rakshya Policy against the housing loan of the husband was debited from the account and the complainant is entitle to get benefit of the policy that is the loan amount has to be waived from recovery from the complainant.
The other issue as to whether the Op No.1 & 2 the OP Bank or OP No. 3 & 4 SBI Life shall be liable for deficiency of service.
When OP No.3 & 4 have averred and also argued and taken the plea of complete denial that they have neither received the premium amount for which they had not issued any policy in favour of the husband of the complainant, the burden lies on the OP No.1 & 2 to establish through reliable documentary evidence that they has deposited the premium deducted from the account of the husband of the complainant and paid/transfer the same to OP No. 2 & 3 SBI Life for issue of RIN Rakshya Policy covering the housing loan availed by the husband of the complainant. As discussed above, the OP No. 1 & 2 have admitted to have deducting of Rs.5147/- from the account to forward the premium of the policy. They also took the stand that the above premium amount was handed over in shape of DD vide DD No.724081 and handed over the same to one Pawan Kumar Sing,BDM,SBI Life in presence of R.C.Naik and Jayadev Naik.
To substantiate the plea, the OP 1 & 2 had relied on the copy of Draft application dt.29.03.2016, withdrawal slip dt.29.03.2016 which indicate that Rs.5147/- had been debited from the account of Siratha Pradhan and Bank Draft No.724081 had been purchased in favour of SBI Life on the same date. The OP No.3 & 4 in their letter dt.19.06.17 to D.M, SBI has mentioned that they have received the death claim No.356381230 from the Bank but denied receipt of Draft NO.724081 for Rs.5147/- and also asked to produce receipt in support of the same being received by BDM,Mr.Pawan Kumar Sing. From the above, it is clear that the insurance claim has been forwarded to the OP No.2 & 3 and also that there was no denial that Mr.Pawan Singh BDM is their representative.
Further OP No.1 & 2 to substantiate their stand that the Bank Draft had been handed over to Mr. Singh, submitted two number of affidavits of Rabi Chandra Naik and Jayadev Naik, the Staff of OP No.1 and who sworn before Notary Public that the Branch had handed over the Draft which was purchased in the name of SBI Life to BDM Pawan Kumar Sing with all documents for early issuance of Insurance Policy. So from the document evidence and affidavits we support the stand of the OP No.1 and 2 that the Bank draft towards the insurance premium had been handed over to the BDM Sing of SBI Life. For what reasons and circumstances policy had not been issued is the concern of OP No.3 &4, SBI Life so we hold that the OP No.3 & 4 are deficient in service.
Further due to lack of communication between the Bank and SBI Life the complainant need not have to suffer while it is admitted that insurance premium had been debited from the account of husband of the complainant and that he died during the policy period. The OP No.1 & 2 and OP No.3 & 4 have every right to settle their dispute in proper Court but the complainant is entitle to get the insurance benefit on RIN Rakshya which was opted to cover the risk of the loanee. Hence, in view of the above discussion finding and documents on record, it is ordered.
ORDER
The Opposite Party No.3 & 4 are directed to pay the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 8% from the date of death of the husband of the complainant till date of payment and deposit the same in the Housing Loan account of late Suratha Chandra Pradhan. The OP No.1 & 2 are directed not to charge any interest on the loan amount from the date of death of Suratha Chandra Pradhan. The OP No. 1 & 2 are entitle to charge simple interest from the date of granting loan till death of the loanee but directed not to recover the same till insurance amount is not compensated by OP No.3 & 4. In the above circumstance No cost.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 18th day of February, 2019 under the seal and signature of this forum.
Sd/(B.Pattnaik) S/(A.K.Sahoo)
Member President
Documents relied upon:
By the Complainant:
- Copy of Death Certificate
- Copy of application to the OP :No.1 by the complainant.
- Copy of application to the Regional Director ,SBI Life, Bhubaneswar by the complainant.
- Copy of letter dt.96.2017 of SBI Life to the OP No.1.
- Statement of Account
- Copy of SB Account of Suratha Chandra Pradhan.
By the OP Bank:
- Copy of debit voucher dt.9.03.2016
- Copy of draft application dt.29.093.2016 showing preparation of draft bearing no.724081 dt.29.03.2016.
-
President
