AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard.
Dr. (Smt.) Sushma Joshi, complainant and her husband, Shri K. K. Joshi pledged the property, after obtaining loan of Rs.6 lacs in their joint name from State Bank of India, opposite party No. 1 with SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd./the respondent No. 2. A sum of Rs.41,922/- was deducted at source for insurance of the husband and the wife. Unfortunately, the husband, Shri K. K. Joshi passed away and the claim was made. It transpired that only wife, Smt. Sushma Joshi was insured and not her husband.
A complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. An appeal was filed by Dr. Smt. Sushma Joshi before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the following conclusion: "3. This amounts to sharp practice. Once the property has been purchased in joint name then without first ascertaining from the borrower whether they would like to be jointly assured, the bank could not have unilaterally proceeded to insure the appellant only. Under these circumstances, the bank is liable to insure the husband along with the wife for security of the loan."
State Commission also found that there was deficiency on the part of State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 and the appeal was accepted. The revision petition has been filed by the State Bank of India.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Our attention was invited towards the loan sanctioned order, which was in the name of Smt. Sushma Joshi only. The name of Dr. K. K. Joshi is conspicuously missing. The relevant extract of this letter germane to this controversy runs as follows: "SBI Life Premium :The SBI Life Premium with service tax of 10.2%, for Single Elder Applicant is Rs.41922."
Though the same was accepted by one, Dr. K. S. Joshi. It must be borne in mind that both the husband and wife are doctors. They are well educated persons. It is to be assumed that they know English language very well. It is clearly mentioned that premium was filled by single person. The way they have signed clearly goes to depict their mala fide intentions. It is signed as K. S. Joshi. ''K'' represents the male doctor and ''S'' represents the complainant.
There is another statement of particulars of Group Life Insurance for Housing Loan Borrowers of State Bank Group, Annexure X, which clearly goes to show that Dr. K. K. Joshi was shown as nominee and not as a joint borrower. The borrower''s details were in the name of Dr.
Sushma Joshi. Had Dr. K. K. Joshi signified his willingness to become one of the co-borrower, he would have asked to pay the further premium of Rs.41,922/-. We find considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to save the money, he did not get the insurance policy alongwith his wife.
The District Forum rightly held at the foot of this order, which is reproduced as here under : "As the property purchased by the complainant, had been got insured in her own name, therefore in this situation, on the death of the husband of the complaint, not to pay the claim amount by the respondent, cannot be accepted a case of deficiency in service.
Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed."
On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant tried to support the order of the State Commission and has invited our attention towards page 37 ( of this file) to the written statement filed by the opposite party. Learned counsel indulged in hubble-bubble but could not clarify his position.
Lastly, it must be borne in mind that we are not dealing with a case of illiterate or dumb driven people. This is a case of educated persons. The order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is hereby restored, wherein the complaint was dismissed.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.