SBI Life is at it again. Now, they're refusing to pay out insurance, and appealing cases against aged women all the way to the Supreme Court!
Here's the case:
- Kavita and Vijay Sharma bought a house in 2005 with a loan of 9.65 lakh from Union bank.
- To cover the loan, the Sharmas paid Rs. 1.26 lakh in 2005.
- This is a large amount - more than 12% as insurance! Obviously the Sharmas were old, probably above 60 years of age. We don't know their age.
- Unfortunately, Vijay Sharma died in 2008.
- Note this carefully. 2008.
- SBI refused to pay insurance on the loan, saying the age proof of the insured was not given.
- It also claimed it returned the premium amount on the same day it was paid.
- But this is a blatant lie. The bank statement of Union Bank shows the amount was paid back, but in 2010!
- 2010 is two years after the death of Vijay Sharma!
- And think of this. Kavita Sharma, apparently an aged widow, had to go to the district consumer commission, who ruled in her favour because obviously this was a lie from SBI Life. SBI was ordered to pay the insurance and a fine.
- Then SBI Life dragged the aged Ms. Sharma to the state commission. Which dismissed their complaint.
- Then they took it to the National Commission. Against an aged widow! Well done, SBI Life. (slow clap)
- The national commission told SBI Life to go take a hike.
Thanks to @ManojNagpal for the tweets on this. Manoj says they even went to the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition which was rejected!
Update: Here's the link of the SC dismissing the Special Leave Petition. thanks to Manoj.
It's 2014. Six years after the death of Mr. Sharma. Six years of legal battle. And it's not apparent SBI Life has paid up even now. They might try another appeal somewhere else.
Would you like that to happen to your loved ones after you die? Why would you ever buy a policy from SBI Life?
Why isn't SBI Life Fined 10 crores?
This is such a disgusting act by SBI that it should have been fined 10 crores by the court and the amount paid to Ms. Sharma. Unless you have such massive fines, the insurance companies will not learn. And we NEED to cut them down.
If the age proof was really not given, then it should have been addressed at the time of the policy being given. If they accepted the premium and kept it for five years, they had to honour the policy, whether age proof was given or not at the time to giving the policy.
And what was Union Bank doing? They obviously needed to have followed up and kept a copy of the policy. After all, it was their loan that was being covered!
This is massive deficiency in service. Refusing insurance to aged widows is the worst form of malpractice, especially by the malicious return of premium two years after a person dies. This sort of behaviour is what causes us to distrust insurance companies. At the very least, IRDA should take notice.
On another note, I hope everyone at SBI Life responsible for doing this rots in hell. I would like to believe in hell, temporarily,so they can be put there.
Here's the National Consumer Commission order: