Skip to main content

SBI asked to pay Rs. 8 lakh in damages

Bank accused of deficiency in service for not informing clients of policy surrender

The district consumer disputes redressal forum (DCDRF)–North has directed State Bank of India (SBI) and its insurance company to pay a compensation of Rs. 8.68 lakh for pre-closing the insurance policies of a consumer without prior information.

The complainants, V. Sree Manikandan and Vanitha Sree Manikandan of R.A. Puram, had taken six single SBI Life Sukh Jeevan policies.

Subsequently, they took a loan of Rs. 12.25 lakh from SBI. They gave their policies as collateral security on April 2, 2002.

In 2011, in response to a letter they sent SBI, the complainants were informed that their policies, whose maturity value was Rs. 25 lakh, had been cancelled way back in 2005, and a sum of Rs. 16.91 lakh had been realised.

After deducting the loan amount and interest, Rs. 85,000 had been transferred to the complainant, said SBI.

The complainants accused the bank of deficiency of service as they were not informed about surrendering the policies. The bank’s counsel claimed the complaint was false. He said the loan amount had to be repaid within a period of three years with interest. However, as the complainant did not make the repayments properly, the policies were surrendered to the insurance company.

The insurance company’s counsel said that since the complainants had assigned the policies in favour of the bank, they had no right over them.

The consumer forum said that surrendering the policies and adjusting the amount towards loan without any instruction from the complainants would amount to deficiency in service.

Pre-closing the policy without informing the customers had caused them a financial loss of Rs. 8.68 lakh and severe mental agony, said the forum, comprising its president R. Mohandoss and members A. Dayalan and T. Kalaiyarasi.

 Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/chen-society/sbi-asked-to-pay-rs-8-lakh-in-damages/article6229272.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more