SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ASHA DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 5.7.2010 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal ('State Commission' for short), the operative portion of which is reproduced below:

(2.) Respondent No. 1 herein is the complainant and the petitioner herein was OP No. 2 along with Respondent No. 2 herein being OP No. 1 before the District Forum. The husband of the complainant applied for a housing loan to OP-1, i.e., the State Bank of India, Gwalior for purchasing a house for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000. Out of this amount, Rs. 2,50,000 was to be paid by the husband of the complainant and Rs.4,00,000 was to be paid by OP-1 Bank as housing loan. However, the deceased borrower had obtained Rs. 4,25,000 as loan because out of this amount, Rs. 25,000 was being paid to OP-2, namely, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai. It was indicated to the deceased borrower that OP-2 Company would provide insurance cover to the effect that if the death of the borrower takes place due to any reason, in that case, entire outstanding loan will get liquidated. Accordingly, 174 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 4,250 were fixed by OP-1 Bank for a total loan amount of Rs. 4,25,000. The borrower of the housing loan, i.e., husband of the complainant died on 10.2.2006 after paying 25 instalments. OP-1 Bank demanded the payment of the outstanding balance of loan to which the complainant requested the Bank to get the balance amount from the OP-2 Company since the loan was fully insured. The OP-1 Bank, however, vide its letter dated 17.3.2006 informed the complainant that her husband was not granted any insurance cover by OP-2 Insurance Company because no document was executed at the time of loan being taken by her husband from OP-1. Peeling aggrieved by the negative response from OP-1 to her request for liquidating the loanby the insurance claim, the complainant lodged a complaint with the District Forum which was resisted by both the OP-1 Bank and the OP-2 Insurance Company. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint finding no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. The complainant having gone in appeal before the State Commission challenging the order of the District Forum, the State Commission allowed the appeal vide its impugned order against which OP-2 hasnow filed the present revision petition.

(3.) In spite of notice, OP-1 Bank who is Respondent-2 herein has chosen to remain absent and nobody has appeared on its behalf. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that the housing loan of Rs. 4,00,000 was sanctioned by OP-Bank to the husband of the complainant. It is also not in dispute that Rs. 25,000 was added to the loan amount of Rs. 4,00,000 on account of the insurance premium being paid to the OP-2 Insurance Company. Not only this, admittedly the equated monthly instalments were also fixed after taking into consideration the total amount of Rs. 4,25,000 and the same were being repaid by the husband of the complainant regularly till he suddenly died on 10.2.2006 on account of heart attack. It has, however, been argued on behalf of the petitioner that even if it is assumed that the OP-Bank had debited an amount of Rs. 25,000 in the loan account of the deceased borrower (this fact is not admitted by the petitioner Insurance Company) still the petitioner Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the outstanding loan because the said premium of Rs. 25,000 was never remitted to the petitioner Insurance Company and no documents were ever filed for the grant of insurance cover. It is further submitted that OP-1 Bank is a separate legal entity and is not the agent of the petitioner Insurance Company and hence the petitioner Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the acts of omission and commission, if any, on the part of OP-Bank so as to make it to pay the outstanding loan. In the circumstances, it is the submission of the petitioner Insurance Company that there is no deficiency on its part in the matter and hence it cannot be held responsible for payment of outstanding loan. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside.