HEMANGI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal No.593 of 2022 assails the order dtd. 23/6/2022 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short 'the State Commission') partly allowing Complaint No.74 of 2014 and directing the Appellant herein to pay ?20 Lakhs as insurance cover for the accidental death of the late husband of Respondent No.1, with interest @ 9% p.a. along with ?1 Lakh towards mental agony and harassment and ?50,000/- as costs within two months or with interest @ 12% p.a. jointly and severally with Respondent No.3.

(2.) This order will also dispose of First Appeal No.62 of 2023 filed by the Respondent No.1 which also emanates from the same order as the facts in both the Appeals are the same. First Appeal No.593 of 2022 is taken as the lead case.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Mr. Rohit Vaid, the late husband of Respondent No.1, had availed two home loans of ?14 Lakhs each from Respondent No.3 (State Bank of India) in respect of two flats. As per a Master Policy held by Respondent No.3, State Bank of India, with the Appellant, the Proposed Life Assured (PLA) was entitled to insurance cover under the life cover policy 'SBI Life - RINn Raksha Insurance Policy". A policy proposal was submitted to the Appellant by the Respondent's late husband and premium of ?11,080/- was paid by the Bank to the Appellant on 14/6/2013. However, vide letter dtd. 22/6/2013, the Appellant sent a Health Questionnaire to the borrower asking for disclosure of information regarding his health. Since the requirements as per this letter were not fulfilled, the Appellant refunded the premium back to the account of the borrower on 7/8/2013 through direct credit and wrote a letter dtd. 16/8/2013 informing inability to cover the insured and intimating the refund. The borrower /PLA expired on 4/9/2013 due to a heart attack while overseas on work. The claim of insurance preferred by the Respondent No.1 (wife of the PLA) was turned down by the Appellant on the ground that there was no coverage vide its letter dtd. 26/10/2013. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed Complaint No.74 of 2014 before the State Commission which came to be allowed on contest vide the impugned order. This order is impugned before us.