SBI Life refuses to pay the insurance to Kavita Sharma, an aged widow, after her husband died. Said they returned the premium, but they did that two years after his death. Dragged the court case for six years.

1. 6/19/2014
1/5
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 4891 OF 2013
(Against the Order dated 04/12/2013 in Appeal No. 598/2012 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
WITH
IA/8170/2013
1. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD
KAPAS BHAWAN, PLOT NO-3,A SECTOR-10,
BELAPUR
NAVI MUMBAI - 400614
MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SMT. KAVITA SHARMA & ANR
W/O VIJAY SHARMA, R/O DANIK SAVAD SADHNA,
SWARNIM BHAWAN, TILAK MARG, T.P NAGAR,
KORBA THANA,
DISTRICT : KORBA
C.G
2. SHRI VIVEK SHARMA,
R/O DANIK SAVAD SADHNA, SWARNIM BHAWAN,
TILAK MARG, T.P NAGAR, KORBA THANA
DISTRICT : KORBA
C.G
3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH CORBA, T.P NAGAR, KORBA THANA
DISTRICT : KORBA
C.G ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kapil Chawla, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Dated : 03 Jan 2014
ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL)

2. 6/19/2014
2/5
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard.
2. The complainant No. 1, Smt. Kavita Sharma, wife of Shri
Vijay Sharma, since deceased, and Shri Vijay Sharma, both of them
took loan in the sum of Rs.9,65,000/- on 27.10.2005 for
construction of house form Union Bank of India, opposite party No.
1. In order to ensure that loan taken stands duly protected,
opposite party No. 1 had made arrangement that the loanee should
get membership from SBI Life Super Suraksha Group Life
Insurance Scheme of SBI Life insurance Company Ltd., opposite
party No. 2. For this purpose, requisite insurance premium was
debited from the account of the customer and remitted to the
petitioner, opposite party No. 2 for getting insurance protection.
3. It was stipulated in the insurance policy that if death of the
customer takes place before repayment of the entire loan then the
petitioner would repay the entire outstanding loan under the
aforesaid insurance policy. The complainant No. 1 and her
husband were granted membership on receipt of Rs.1,26,252/-
towards insurance premium. This amount was debited on
15.12.2005 from the joint account of the Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma
who passed away on 22.7.2008. Smt. Kavita Sharma and her son
Vivek Sharma,
complainant No. 2 contended that rest of the amount should not be
taken but their request was not conceded by both the opposite
parties. Therefore, they filed a complaint before the District
Forum. The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed
both the opposite parties to grant insurance benefits as per rules
assuming that the insurance policy was duly granted to the
complainants. The opposite party No. 1 was directed to pay
Rs.2000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain and Rs.
1000/- towards costs of the complaint. Aggrieved by that order, an
appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State
Commission also dismissed the appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No. 2

3. 6/19/2014
3/5
vehemently argued that it had returned the amount on the same day
as is apparent from the statement issued by Union Bank of India,
opposite party No. 1, wherein, the sum of Rs.1,26,252/- was
remitted back in the account of Vijay Kumar Sharma. Learned
counsel for the petitioner vehemently further argued that the said
amount was sent back because it did not carry full particulars of the
proposal form. The age of the deceased was not disclosed.
5. The crux of the matter is, whether Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma
was aware of the fact that the said amount was returned in his
account. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that they
did not post any letter either to the Union Bank of India or
deceased Shri Vijay Kumar as to why the said money was being
returned or that the said money was being returned. This action of
the petitioner/SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. is arbitrary,
despotic and capricious. Learned counsel for the petitioner
clarified that he did not argue like this. He argued that he could not
produce the said particulars. It comes to the same thing. The case
is lingering for the last five years but the relevant documents were
not produced for the reasons best known to the petitioner. The
same were not even produced with this revision petition. It appears
that the petitioner is suppressing the facts and has not come to the
court with clean hands. Legal notice was given by the
complainants on 24.10.2009.
6. It is surprising to note that Union Bank of India sent a letter to
Smt. Kavita Sharma on 12.9.2009 which is reproduced as follows:
“We hereby inform you, that as per the directives of
Insurance Co. proposer is advised to give proof of
Date of Birth, but it has not produced at the time of
insurance that is why this is not materialized as per
the record. This is for your kind information
please.”
7. There is not even an iota of evidence which may go to show
that this information was sent to the deceased by either of the
parties prior to death of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma. Moreover, as

4. 6/19/2014
4/5
held by both the fora, there was no column for writing the age of
Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma. The proposal form was withheld and it
did not see the light of the day. It is clear that the opposite parties
want to keep the material facts under the hat.
8. In their written statement, the opposite party No. 2 in para 10
mentioned that:
“……. The O.P. No. 2 has not even accepted the
initial deposit. The proposal along with the DD was
returned to the proposer through the office of O.P.
No. 1 because the basic and essential requirement
of DOB proof was not submitted along with the
proposal.”
9. There is no evidence, worth the name, that the insurance
amount was sent back. No communication was received by Shri
Vijay Kumar Sharma during his life time. It was the basic duty of
the SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. to return the amount and give the
reasons to the proposer as well as bank why it was being sent back.
The non-mention of date of birth has got exiguous value as was
discussed by this Commission in Anand Kumar Kejariwal vs.
LIC of India & Anr., II (2011) CPJ 249 (NC) referred by the
State Commission in its judgment. It is clear that PW-1 and PW-2
were working in cahoots while committing the above said
deficiency in this case. It is also not clear that the amount of
Rs.1,26,252/- was sent back on the same day by the opposite party
No. 2. Mere debit and credit entries without the name of sender
proves nothing. That is not clear from the statement of account.
However, the District Forum was pleased to hold:
“Further on perusal of bank statement dated
18/02/2010 it is clear that for the purpose of grant
of insurance one time payment of premium was
debited to the account of late Shri Vijay Kumar
Sharma (whose death took place on 22/07/2008)
and thereafter on 01/02/2010 the premium was
remitted back in the bank account and as such the
opposite parties refused to grant insurance cover to
the deceased life assured which according to us is

5. 6/19/2014
5/5
deficiency in service.”
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that this is a
mistake. It is also surprising to note that the petitioner did not
produce any evidence in writing that the said money was returned
on the same very date or any documentary proof in this
connection. They are just depending on the statement of account
by Union Bank of India which does not prove its case, but of its
own, it has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence. The
bank should have asked why the money was returned but there is
no such communication
11. The revision petition is lame of strength, therefore, the same is
hereby dismissed.
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER