STATE BANK OF INDIA vs KANTA DEVI & ORS

This order shall decide both the above-said revision petitions which were filed by the State Bank of India which pertained to the same case. The facts of these revision petitions are these. Shri Vijay Kumar, since deceased, obtained a policy for the sum assured in the sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs. The said policy commenced from 3.6.2009 and it was to mature on 3.6.2026. Shri Vijay Kumar passed away on 28.11.2009. The premium amount of the said policy was Rs.510/- per month being continuously deducting from his Account No.10506612574 through ECS being maintained by the complainant with the State Bank of India/OP No.2. The policy was granted by Life Insurance of India/OP No.1.

Smt. Kanta Devi, Shri Anil Kumar, Shri Sunil Kumar, the LRs of Vijay Kumar approached the Life Insurance of India for payment of claim. However, the Life Insurance of India repudiated their claim on the ground that premiums for the months of November and December 2009 were not paid. Both the Foras have decided the case in favour of the complainant and against State Bank of India/OP No.2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ opposite party No.2 has invited our attention towards few documents. He contended that they had sent requisition dated 7.11.2009 to the Life Insurance of India but the Life Insurance of India did not correct its particulars. He also invited our attention towards the scheme of electric clearance service debit. Under the caption coverage, he has invited our attention to Para No.4 which runs as follows:- The debit instructions from the User would be in electronic form and would form the basis for the Sponsor Bank to credit the User s account and the Destination Bank branches to debit the Destination Account Holder s Accounts. However, it shall be the responsibility of the destination banks to ensure appropriate mandates form their customers authorizing them to debit their accounts exist on their records. If such mandates are not available on their record, they would not be entitled to get any legal protection and are not authorized to effect such debits to the customers accounts.

Again under the user s responsibility to ensure accuracy of input data. Clause- A runs as follows:- (a) The User (LIC) would ensure the accuracy of the input data with reference to the information received from the Destination Account Holders in the form of a mandate duly authenticated by the destination bank branch .

On the other hand, counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that it did not receive the letter dated 7.11.2009 already mentioned above. This appears to have been a document created by the State Bank of India itself. The Insurance Company had no occasion to find out whether it is correct or not. It, therefore, appears that the Bank could not send the premiums for the months of November and December. They are trying to put the blame unnecessarily on the Insurance Company.

The State Commission also observed as under:- 11. Further, we are of the considered view that going by the same version of Opposite Party No.2, it failed to place, on record, the requisitions for ECS mandate raised by Opposite Party No.1, for the first four months i.e. July to October, 2009 requiring it (Opposite Party No.2) to deposit Rs.510/- per month with Opposite Party No.1 because it had been repeatedly alleging that Opposite Party No.1 had not raised the specific transaction mandate for the month of November and December, 2009 and, as such, the plea of the counsel for the appellant / Opposite Party No.2, in this regard, is devoid of any merit and the same, is accordingly rejected. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that such an act, on the part of the Opposite Party No.2, of not honouring the ECS mandate given by LA, duly forwarded by Opposite Party No.1 to it, certainly amounted to deficiency in rendering service towards the complainants. Thus, the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld. The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

Even the second revision petition is barred by 393 days. The fresh documents have been considered but they do not go to prove the case of the Bank. Both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed.