Date of filing : 06-02-2012

                                            Date of Disposal : 22-02-2013

                                     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.

                                   PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).

                                            Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

                                            Friday, the 22^nd day of February, 2013

                                                   C.C.NO.07/2012

Between:

                1.  Arveti Lakshmidevamma @ Lakshmidevi

                     W/o Late A.Ramasubbaiah.

                2.  Arveti Chennaiah S/o Late A.Ramasubbaiah

                     Both are residing at D.No.4-753, C.B. Road

                     Tadipatri, Anantapur District.                                                        … Complainants

                Vs.

1.    The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

C.B. Road, Tadipatri, Anantapur District.

1. The Authorized Officer, SBI Life Insurance

Co.Ltd., Ground floor, Turner, Morison Building,

G.N.Vaidya Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023.                              …. Opposite parties

This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of  Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu and Sri N.U.Devanatha Reddy, advocates for the complainants and    Sri G.Seetharama Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 and Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

Smt.M.Sreelatha,Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2  to direct them to pay sum assured as per Insurance Policy of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.92,000/- towards interest               @ 18% p.a. on Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of death of late A.Ramasubbaiah i.e. 11-07-2009 to 01-02-2012 and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony in total Rs.3,07,000/- with future interest @ 18% p.a.  and costs of the complaint.

2.         The brief facts of the complaint are that: -  The complainants are permanent residents of Tadipatri Town. The husband of 1^st complainant A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant A.Chennaih, who is his son have availed housing loan for the purpose of construction of the house in the year 2005 from the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party has sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the accountNo.11093436559 to the husband of the 1^st complainant and 2^nd complainant. The period of loan is 15 years. The Bank authorities have also advertised that the persons who will take home loans from the said Bank will be given benefit of insurance also and in case of death of any loanee, the Bank undertakes to pay insurance amount through SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., which is the sister concern of 1^st opposite party.  Basing on the advertisement, the husband of the 1^st complainant and 2^nd complainant  have availed loan from the 1^st opposite party on 17-03-2005. The benefit given to the loanees under housing scheme is that they have to pay very less premium and insurance amount will be paid in the event of death of any loanee.  Like-wise the husband of 1^st complainant has paid premium of Rs.3,555/- and the 1^st opposite party insured a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. At the time of taking loan, the Bank authorities clearly stated that both loanees are entitled for the insurance amount in case of death of any of the loanee.  The husband of the 1^st complainant and the 2^nd complainant demanded for the policy bond from the Bank Authorities and the Bank Authorities stated that the policy bond will be given on subsequent date and postponed the same on some pretext or the other.  The policy bond will be retained by the Bank Authorities and premium amount will be paid through account of the loanee regularly. The husband of the 1^st complainant A.Ramasubbaiah died on 11-07-2009 and immediately the said fact has been informed to the 1^st opposite party and requested to pay insurance amount as per terms and conditions of the loan mentioned at the time of taking of the loan.   The 2^nd complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to credit the insurance amount to the loan account.    The Bank authorities accepted for the same and asked the 2^nd complainant to submit death claim to the 1^st opposite party and they have also issued all requisite forms to the 2^nd complainant for settling the death claim. The 2^nd complainant has submitted the death claim to the 1^st opposite party as required by them and the 1^st opposite party has given assurance that the matter will be settled within few days and insurance amount will be credited to the loan account.   The 1^st opposite party also recommended for the payment of insurance amount to the 2^nd opposite party to deal with SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,    The deceased A.Ramasubbaiah got 5 daughters, one son and wife and his daughters were married and living alongwith their respective husbands.  Hence the complainants filed the complaint.  Late A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant were paying loan amount regularly to the 1^st opposite party till the death of A.Ramasubbaiah  as the 1^st opposite party promised that they will credit the insurance amount to the loan account, the 2^nd complainant is under impression that the loan will be cleared as outstanding balance in the loan account is less than Rs.2,00,000/-. As the 1^st opposite party did not take any care to settle the claim of the complainants, the 2^nd complainant got issued notice on 19-12-2011 to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party got issued reply notice dt.23-01-2012 stating that the insurance was given only to the 2^nd complainant.  To the surprise of the complainants, the 1^st opposite party has mentioned in the said notice that though the loan is sanctioned in the name of late A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant, insurance policy stands in the name of the 2^nd complainant only and not in the name of late A.Ramasubbaiah.  The 1^st opposite party has not revealed the said fact at any point of time.  In fact, the entire premium was being paid by late A.Ramasubbaiah through his account.  The loan taken by late A.Ramasubbaiah as the site stands in the name of late A.Ramasubbaiah.  As late A.Ramasubbaiah got only one son i.e. 2^nd complainant, the Bank Authorities asked the 2^nd complainant to join co-borrower alongwith his father.  As per the terms and conditions of the 1^st opposite party, all the loanees are given benefit of insurance.   The 1^st opposite party admitted that late A.Ramasubbaiah is 1^st loanee and 2^nd complainant is co-borrower alongwith him.  If the 1^st opposite party would have revealed that no insurance benefits are given to both loanees, the question of taking loan from the 1^st opposite party does not at all arise.  Inspite of repeated demands made by the complainants, insurance policy has not been given by the 1^st opposite party.  Instead of settling the insurance amount, the 1^st opposite party is threatening the 2^nd complainant that they will proceed under Securitization Act.  The 1^st opposite party has also given notice under Securitization Act to late A.Ramasubbaiah i.e. dead person on 05-12-0211.   Due to inadvertent attitude of the opposite parties, the complainants suffered lot of mental agony.  It is the duty of the 1^st opposite party to inform at the time of taking loan in whose name insurance policy is issued.  Inspite of repeated requests by the complainants, the 1^st opposite party has not given insurance policy to them.  Hence the complainants filed the complaint claiming a sum of Rs.3,07,000/- towards insurance amount, interest, mental agony, costs of complaint with future interest @ 18% p.a.

3.         The 1^st opposite party filed a counter stating that the husband of the 1^st complainant and 2^nd complainant are the joint borrowers under Loan Account No.11093436559 and they have jointly availed housing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- form the 1^st opposite party.  The age of entry under SBI Life Super Suraksha Group Life Insurance Scheme for housing loan borrowers is 18 to 55 years only. As the age of husband of 1^st complainant was 61 years at the time of availing loan, insurance policy was not taken in his name.  The said Insurance Policy wastaken in the name of 2^nd complainant only and original insurance policy bond was handed over to the 2^nd complainant as he is the insured borrower.   Knowing very well that insurance policy was taken in the name of 2^nd complainant, with a malafide intention of harassing the bank authorities, the 2^nd complainant submitted death claim to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., for the death of husband of 1^st complainant by name A.Ramasubbaiah and the same was rejected as there is no insurance policy stands in the name of A.Ramasubbaiah. The 2^nd complainant filed a complaint on                    13-11-2010 before the Banking Ombudsman(AP), Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad and the same was rejected by the Banking Ombudsman on 15-04-2011.  The 2^nd complainant who is the co-borrower stopped paying loan installments and became chronic defaulter. On                   05-12-2011 the 1^st opposite party issued a notice in the name of A.Ramasubbaiah u/s 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of society interest Act, 2000 for recovery of debt to the 1^st opposite party as the property stands in his name and he is the mortgagor. After issuing the notice, the 2^nd complainant got issued notice dt.19-02-2011 to the 1^st opposite party with false allegations and a suitable reply notice was issued by the 1^st opposite party on 23-02-2012.   The husband of the 1^st complainant has not taken any insurance policy under SBI Life Super Rurakhsa Group Life Insurance Scheme as he was aged 61 years at the time of obtaining loan.  The complainants suppressed the material fact that they had filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and the same was rejected.   The said insurance policy was taken by the 2^nd complainant and as he is alive, the death claim is not maintainable. There are no merits in the complaint.  The complainants filed the unjust complaint with a malafide intention of stopping legal action under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 by the 1^st opposite party.  As there is no insurance policy in the name of late A.Ramasubbaiah, the 1^st opposite party is not liable to pay claim amount. Hence the 1^st opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.         The 2^nd opposite party filed a counter denying all the contents of the complaint, which are contrary to or inconsistent.  This opposite party is not privy to the transactions between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant/deceased. The insurance cover is not automatic and it is only optional. The home loan borrowers may opt for insurance cover, who fulfill the eligibility criterion and pays the requisite premium. It is clear from the statement of particulars submitted by the master policyholder A.Chennaiah is the only member to be insured and the premium amount to Rs.3,555/- for A.Chennaiah was paid. Again the nmoninee’s name provided as A.Ramasubbaiah. This opposite party was not even aware that A.Ramasubbaiah was also a joint borrower of home loan. The application form for housing loan and insurance cover are different and separate contracts.  The issuance of home loan and insurance cover are not concurrent.  Both contracts are governed by different and separate terms and conditions.  This opposite party denied that A.Ramasubbaiah had applied for insurance cover.  The loan account number as per statement of particulars given by the Master Policy holder is 01593030145.  This opposite party denied that both loanees are entitled for insurance amount in case of death of any of the loanee.  The claim documents were received and a letter dt.29-01-2010 was sent to the Master Policyholder mentioning that A.Ramasubbaiah was not insured.  The opposite party is not privy to what is transpired between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant.  This opposite party is not responsible for the acts of commission or omission on the part of 1^st opposite party and not assured any one about settlement of the claim.   As the deceased was only the nominee under insurance cover, the complainant have no locus to file the present complaint.  The insurance cover was granted based on the statement of particulars submitted by the Master policyholder, State Bank of India in which the name of 2^nd complainant was mentioned this opposite party was not even aware that A.Ramasubbaiah was co-borrower.  The issuance of home loan and insurance cover are not concurrent.  Both contracts are governed by different and separate terms and conditions. This opposite party has granted the insurance cover in utmost good faith, based on the details provided by the master policy-holder. Certificate of insurance was sent by normal post. Hence, the dispatch details of the same are not available. It is clear from the certificate of insurance that A.Chennaiah was covered. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant herself has admitted that the master policy-holder has replied to the legal notice stating that the deceased has never applied for insurance cover and was not covered also. The deceased was not insured and hence the question of settlement of insurance claim does not arise at all.  It is quite unjust to demand the benefits of insurance cover without complying with the formalities of insurance cover. This opposite party denied that due to inadvertent attitude of this opposite party, the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony.  The insurance cover was granted based on the statement of particulars submitted by the Master policy-holder only.  This opposite party is not liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainants. The complainants could not prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence, no cause of action arisen for the complainants to file this instant complaint.  The complaint is barred by limitation.  It is clear from the documentary evidence that no insurance cover is existent on the life of A.Ramasubbaiah. The complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.  The complainant does not have any right or whatsoever to challenge the decision of this opposite party because the decision of the party was just and legal and no cause of action has arisen and the complainant is not entitled to file the present complaint.  Hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.         Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:

           1.  Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

           2.  Whether late A.Ramasubbaiah was policyholder and the complainants are entitled the

                claim? 

          3.  To what relief?

6.         To prove the case of the complainants, the evidence on affidavit of the 1^st complainant has been filed and marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents. On behalf of the 1^st opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 1^st opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 to B4 documents and on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 2^nd opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B5 to B13 documents.

7.         Heard both sides.

8.      POINT NO.1 – The counsel for the complainants argued that the 2^nd complainant i.e. A.Chennaiah and his father by name A.Ramasubbaiah has taken house loan from the 1^st opposite party in the year 2005 and the 1^st opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the 2^nd complainant and A.Ramasubbaiah.  It is submitted by the counsel for the complainants that at the time of taking house loan the 1^st opposite party advertised that who will take home loan, the Bank will give benefit of insurance in case of death of loanee and 2^nd opposite party is insurer.  A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,555/- as premium for insurance of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The opposite party stated that both loanees are entitled insurance amount in case of death of any loanee and the opposite parties failed to supply policy bond to the loanees.  A.Ramasubbaiah died on 11-07-2009 and immediately informed to the 1^st opposite party and the Bank people asked the complainant to submit death claim forms and the 2^nd complainant submitted all the documents to the 1^st opposite party on                   23-10-2008.  But the 1^st opposite party failed to settle the claim.  Hence the complainants got issued legal notice on 19-12-2011 and reply was issued by the 1^st opposite party on 23-01-2012 with false allegations stating that insurance policy stands in the name of 2^nd complainant i.e. A.Cehnnaiah but not in the name of A.Ramasubbaiah.  Hence, the complainants approached this Forum and the complaint is within limitation.

9.         The counsel for the 2^nd opposite party argued that late A.Ramasubbaiah has taken house loan in the year 2005 and cause of action has arisen from the date of insurance. The complaints filed this complaint after lapse of 7 years.  Hence the complaint is barred by limitation as per section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act and there was no separate application for condonation of delay.  For this the opposite party relying on the judgment reported in 2002 Civil Appeal No.4962/02 in between Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. & another  The Hon’bel National Commission held that when there is delay the petitioner has to explain day-today delay and the opposite party also submitted another ruling reported in Civil Appeal No.2067/2002  between State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries, wherein the Hon’ble apex court held that if the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decides the complaint  on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and therefore the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set-aside.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is barred by limitation.

10.       It is submitted that the date on which the basic cause of action arisen can not be extended on subsequent correspondence.   As per Ex.B1 A.Ramsubbaiah and 2^nd complainant are loan borrowers from the 1^st opposite party and there is not dispute with regard to sanction of house loan by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainants counsel stated that A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant are both policy-holders.  But the 1^st opposite party failed to give policy, the complainants are under the impression that A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant both are insured.  As per Ex.A2 date of death of A.Ramasubbaiah was 11-07-2009 and the complainants submitted all the death claim forms which were requested by the 1^st opposite party on                     23-10-2009.  As per letter dt.19-11-2009 i.e. Ex.A2 by the 1^st opposite party requesting the 2^nd complainant to furnish some more documents to settle the claim, but they have not settled the clailm and there is exchange of notices between the parties on 19-12-2011 and 23-01-2011. The 1^st opposite party also got issued legal notice on 05-12-2011 to late A.Ramasubbaiah under Securitization Act.  The 2^nd complainant preferred complaint before the Ombudsman on                15-04-2011 and matter decided by the Ombudsman and repudiated the claim on the ground that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company as late A.Ramasubbaiah is not a policyholder.  As per section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, the cause of action arisen from the date of repudation but not as stated by the opposite party that from the date of taking policy.  In the present case taking into consideration the legal notice of the opposite party under Ex.A3 dt.23-11-2012 and order of Ombudsman under Ex.B4                  dt.15-04-2011.  These dates are give cause of action to the complainant and the present complaint filed by the complainants within limitation from the date of repudiation i.e. under Ex.B4r dt.15-04-2011 and the present complaint filed by the complainants on 06-02-2012 i.e. within one year from the date of rejection of complaint by Ombudsman. Hence the complaint is within time and this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the 2^nd opposite party.

11.       POINT NO.2 – The counsel for the complainants submitted that late A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant have taken loan from the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant have signed all loan papers and loan was sanctioned in the name of both loanees i.e. A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant as per Ex.B1 and there was group insurance policy to all loanees and A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,555/- towards insurance premium for the year 2005 itself.  But the 1^st opposite party failed to supply copy of insurance policy and the complainants are under impression that the policy was in safe with the opposite parties.  A.Ramasubbaiah died on 11-07-2009 and immediately the 2^nd complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and supplied all necessary copies to the 1^st opposite party and requesting the opposite party to credit insurance amount which he is entitled in his account.  To the surprise of him they have not credited the amount. They issued legal notice and reply was given by to the 1^st opposite party stating that A.Ramasubbaiah is not policy-holder and he is only nominee to the policy.  The counsel argued that all the loanees are the insurers and the same is advertised by the 1^st opposite party at the time of taking loan and all the signatures were taken by the Bank people by marking of specified places. Now the opposite party come up with new plea to evade the claim. When the policy is in the name of 2^nd complainant, what is the need to the opposite parties to ask the 2^nd complainant to submit all death claim forms which are necessary to settle the claim?  Because of non-supply of insurance policy, it creates doubt on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the sum assured to the complainants 1 & 2  as they are legal heirs of late A.Ramasubbaiah.  The counsel for the opposite party No.1 argued that late A.Ramasubbaiah and the 2^nd complainant are loan borrowers. The age of entry No.2  in SBI Life Super Suraksha Group Life Insurance Scheme for housing loan preference is 18 to 55  years only and the age of A.Ramasubbaiah was 61 years at the time of taking house loan.  Insurance policy was not in his name and the 2^nd complainant alone is policy-holder and original policy supplied to the 2^nd complainant i.e. A.Chennaiah.  The 2^nd complainant was the policy-holder and A.Ramasubbaiah was nominee.  Hence the death claim of A.Ramasubbaiah does not arise and it was rejected as there is no insurance policy in the name of A.Ramasubbaiah.

12.       The counsel for 1^st opposite party submitted that before coming to this Forum, the complainant No.2 preferred complaint with Banking Ombudsman , Hyderabad and the same was rejected by the Ombudsman on the ground that A.Ramasubbaiah is not a policyholder.  The complainants filed this unjust complaint to harass the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party got issued legal notice on 15-12-2011 under Securitization Act  to A.Ramasubbaiah to pay loan amounts and that when the policy-holder is alive no claim will be given. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party argued that SBI Life Super Suraksha Group Life Insurance Scheme is Group Policy and only one Master Policy will be issued to the Group Administrator containing terms and conditions and certificate of insurance will be issued to the individuals as proof.  In the present case is also one of the Group Insurance Scheme Policy.  The 1^st opposite party gave the list of home loan borrowers in that the 2^nd complainant i.e. A.Chennaiah was only policyholder and A.Ramasubbaiah was the nominee.  In case of joint borrowers also either individual or group borrowers may opt for insurance coverage.  In case both borrowers want to avail loan both of them need to avail eligible criteria and terms and conditions.  In the present case the master policy-holder, the 2^nd complainant is only insured but not A.Ramasubbaiah as alleged by the complainants and no proposal was submitted and no premium was received from late A.Ramasubbaiah.   As per the schedule-II point No.3 eligibility criteria of the Master Policy, “ The existing or home loan borrowers of the Grantees ………………….have duly signed the declaration of good health-cum-consent letter and who have fulfilled, to the satisfaction of the company, the medical requirements, if any, as prescribed by the company.  It is further stated in under condition No.4 of Schedule IV of the Master Policy that “ 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.”  Thus in the instant case, A.Ramasubbaiah has not paid the premium.  Hence the question of granting an insurance cover does not arise at all .  It is quite unjust to demand the benefits of insurance without complying with the formalities of insurance.   In the present case the nominee died thus nothing is payable by the 2^nd opposite party.  The application form of house loan and insurance is different.  Home Loan and Insurance coverage are not concurrent.   Both contracts are governed by different and separate terms and conditions.   The 2^nd opposite party is not responsible for  the acts of 1^st opposite party.  Certificate of insurance was sent to the 2^nd complainant by normal post, hence the details are not available with this opposite party.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are not sister concern companies.  They have individual entities.  The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the complainants and the complaint is liable to dismissed against this opposite party with costs.

13.       The complainants filed the documents Ex.A2 to A4 , which are all exchange of notices between the parties.  Ex.A1 is Pass Book.  The complainants failed to produce necessary documentary evidence to show that late A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant i.e. A.Chennaiah have taken insurance policy jointly.  The complainants simply narrated that A.Ramasubbaiah and A.Chennaiah jointly borrowed the house loan and the 1^st opposite party advertised that all loanees may opt of insurance and that A.Ramasubbaiah and A.Chennaiah have taken insurance policy and paid policy premium.  But the opposite parties failed to produce the policy.  We are of the opinion that any person wait to receive policy at reasonable time but in the present case the complainant narrated that they are still waiting to receive the policy.  It is probable that no one can wait receive the policy for such a long period of 7 years i.e. from the date of entering into policy as the 2^nd complainant submits that himself and his father taken policy in the year 2005.  No documents were filed by the complainants to show that they have tried to get insurance policy from the opposite party and there is no whisper whether they contracted the opposite parties to receive the policy either late A.Ramasubbaiah or 2^nd complainant.  As per documents filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 clearly shows that the 2^nd complainant alone taken policy and A.Ramasubbaiah shown as nominee under Ex.B6 proposal form.  In this document in column No.2 details of co-borrower is kept blank and A.Ramasubbaiah showed as nominee in Column No.5.  Under Ex.B2 certificate of insurance  the name of the policyholder mentioned as A.Chennaiah i.e. 2^nd complainant.  Basing on the documents filed by the opposite parties i.e. Ex.B2, 6 & 7 the 2^nd complainant i.e. A.Chennaiah alone is policyholder and A.Ramasubbaiah is nominee in the above said policy.  Nowhere in the documents filed by the complainants show that A.Ramasubbaiah was the policyholder alongwith A.Chennaiah as per terms of 2^nd opposite party.  The person who intends to join in insurance scheme he must possess age group of 20 to 60 years i.e. main criteria to enter into insurance scheme but in the present case the age of A.Ramasubbaiah shown as 61 years in Ex.B6.  Hence the opposite parties can not go against the terms and conditions while taking policy as alleged by the complainants and late A.Ramasubbaiah is not a policyholder.

14.       About the claim the complainants argued that A.Ramasubbaiah and 2^nd complainant are entitled insurance amount. But the complainants have not filed any document how they are entitled. For the first time (Ex.A3) in the  legal notice dt.19-12-2011 the 2^nd complainant stated that A.Ramasubbaiah has taken insurance policy and he paid premium hence he is entitled the claim as the complainants are legal heirs of late A.Ramasubbaiah.  A.Ramasubbaiah died on               11-07-2009.  Notice was issued on 19-12-2011 after lapse of 2 years.  In that legal notice they have mentioned that they have submitted all claim forms to the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed to settle the claim.  Under Ex.A2 death claim forms submitted by the 2^nd complainant to the 1^st opposite party nowhere it is mentioned that A.Ramasubbaiah is policyholder.  Moreover the complainants suppressed the material fact that before coming to this Forum they made complaint to the Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad under Ex.B4 dt.15-04-2012 and the same was rejected by the Ombudsman in its order against the complainants on the ground that late A.Ramasubbaiah was nominee to the 2^nd complainant i.e. A.Chennaiah and A.Ramasubbaiah was aged about 61 years at the time of sanction of loan.  Hence, A.Ramasubbaiah was not eligible for insurance no deficiency of service is proved by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 8 of Banking Ombudsman Scheme.     As per the terms and conditions of SBI Life Insurance the person must possess age of 20 – 60 years but A.Ramasubbaiah was 61 years at the time of availing loan.  So there is no question of issuing policy to A.Ramasubbaiah.  The complainants approached this Forum without any reliable document or oral evidence.   Moreover though the 2^nd complainant is co-borrower of the house loan, they failed to pay installments after death of his father.  He has shown much interest to claim death benefits of his father though the 2^nd complainant is well aware that his father is not entitled any claim as he knew that he is the policyholder. As per the insurance contract the sum assured is payable only on the death of policyholder.  In the present case, original policyholder A.Chennaiah is alive and he is claiming his death amount when he is alive.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that authority reported in 2010 in revision petition No.2884 between State Bank of India Insurance Ltd., Vs. Asha Deep and others.  Even though the opposite parties 1 & 2 are sister concerns belongs to same group since they are separate legal entities, insurance company can not be held responsible for the fault o the Bank.  The complainants failed to prove that how they are entitled the claim amount.  Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.

14. POINT NO.3  In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- payable by the complainants to the opposite parties 1 & 2 within one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 22^nd  day of February, 2013.

                      Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

                  LADY MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT (FAC)

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM                                                       DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

                  ANANTAPUR                                                                                ANANTAPUR.           

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:            ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES

                    -NIL-                                                                       - NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

1. Ex.A1 – Pass Book issued by the 1^st opposite party in favour of late A.Ramasubbaiah

                 And 2^nd complainant.

2. Ex.A2 -  Photo copy of  death claim statement relating to late A.Ramasubbaiah

                  submitted by the 2^nd complainant.

 3. Ex.A3 – Office copy of legal notice dt.19-12-0211 got issued by the 2^nd complainant

                   to the 1^st opposite party.

4.  Ex.A4 – Reply notice got issued by the 1^st opposite party to the counsel for the

                  complainants.

5.  Ex.A5 -  Demand notice dt.05-12-2012 issued by 1^st opposite party to late A.Rama-

                   Subbaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1

1.  Ex.B1 -   Photo copy of Memorandum of term loan agreement  dt.24-01-2005 executed by

                    lateA.Ramasubbaiah and A.Chennaiah/2^nd complainant.

2.Ex.B2  -   Photo copy of Certificate of Insurance issued by the 2^nd opposite party in favour of

                   the 2^nd complainant.

3. Ex.B3  -   Photo copy of SBI Group Swadhan at glance report relating to SBI Life Insurance.

4. Ex.B4  -   Photo copy of complaint dt.15-04-2011 filed by the 2^nd complainant before the

                   Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

5. Ex.B5 -   Photo copy of Home Loan Insurance Master Policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

6. Ex.B6 -   Photo copy of particulars of State Bank Group Housing Loan Borrower dt.17-03-05.

7. Ex.B7 -   Photo copy of letter dt.23-03-2012 showing that 2^nd complainant is insured for a

                   Sum assured.

8. Ex.B8 -   Photo copy of letter dt.29-01-2010 issued by the 2^nd complainant to the 1^st opposite

                   party.

9. Ex.B9 -   Photo copy of citation reported in CDJ 2009 SC 1390.

10. Ex.B10 – Photo copy of citation reported in CDJ 2009 SC 571.

11. Ex.B11 – Photo copy of citation reported in CDJ 2010 (Cons.) Case No.342.

12. Ex.B12 – Photo copy of revision petition No.2884/2010.

13. Ex.B13 – Photo copy of judgment dt.07-02-1966 passed by the Supreme Court of India.

                                           Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

                   MEMBER,                                                                            PRESIDENT (FAC),

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM                                              DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

                  ANANTAPUR                                                                         ANANTAPUR.   

Typed by JPNN