STATE BANK OF INDIA & 2 ORS Vs. SURISETTY LAKSHMI SAI MAHALAKSHMAMMA & 2 ORS ; SURISETTI HIMA JAGADEESH; SURISETTI PRANEETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 19.06.2017 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in First Appeal no. 219 of 2015 ('the State Commission')

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that respondent no. 1 was the wife of Surisetti Venkata Rao and respondents nos.2 and 3 are the sons of Surisetti Venkata Rao who had obtained two housing loans from the petitioner Bank, VSP Steel Plant Branch under two accounts, the first loan was for Rs.8.00 lakh and the second loan was for Rs.5,80,000/-, totalling to Rs.13,80,000/-. The said loans were mortgage loans repayable in instalments from the salary account. Respondent no.1 entered into an agreement while obtaining the loan on 24.08.2009. As per clause no. 7 of the said agreement the loan was covered by Free Personal Accident Insurance Policy. In case any unfortunate incident occurs resulting in the death of the said Venkata Rao borrower, the insurance amount could be adjusted to the second petitioner. On 26.10.2013, the said Venkata Rao died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident. Thereafter his wife Smt Surisetty Lakshmi Sai Mahalakshmamma, the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the second petitioner on 26.06.2014 to adjust the loan amount by insurance policy amount obtained by her husband and the petitioner issued reply on 28.06.2014 stating that the accident policy would not cover from 01.07.2013, since the policy was discontinued by the Bank. Therefore, she had to pay the amount due for the loan obtained by her husband. Subsequently, petitioner no. 3 sent notice under Sarfaesi Act. When the petitioners demanded payment of amount, the present complaint was filed by the wife of Venkata Rao and his two sons respondent nos. 1 to 3 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioners.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners/ opposite parties was that the Group Personal Accident Insurance (death only) was made available to Home and Car Loan Customers of the bank as a complementary service through New India Assurance Company Limited from 01.07.2003 to 01.07.2012. Venkata Rao, the husband of respondent no. 1 was covered under this policy. The accident insurance policy was offered and was valid for a period of one year only and thereafter. Thereafter, it was renewable every year. The above said policy was a free complementary facility to the Home and Car loan customers of the Bank. It was being renewed every year up to 01.07.2013 midnight. Since the policy was a complementary to Home and Car Loan customers the petitioner Bank had discretion to continue or to discontinue the policy at any time. The receiver of the complementary policy cannot compel that the offer be continued forever. The Bank therefore, decided to discontinue the complementary group personal accident assurance cover for Home and Car Loan customers on the expiry of Current Master Policy on 01.07.2013 midnight and advised its Home and Car Loan borrowers who did not have any insurance cover for their loan liabilities that they may like to opt for the policies being offered by the SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., or any other insurance company of their choice.