K.S. Gupta, Member—This order will govern the disposal of Revision Petition Nos. 3945 of 2009, 347 of 2010 and 348 of 2010.

In the order the parties are referred as they were arrayed in the complaint.

2. R.P. No.3945 of 2009 filed by SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. , I opposite party No.1 and R.P. No.347 of 2010 preferred by Smt. Asha Lata Parida, complainant are directed against the same order dated 21.8.2009 in F.A. No.213 of 2008 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa, Cut tack. R.P. No.348 of 2010 is filed by the complainant against the order dated 31.3.2009 passed in FA No.196 of 2008 by the same State Commission. Said two appeals were filed against the order dated 14.2.2008 of a District Forum.

3. Facts giving rise to these revision petitions lie in a narrow compass. Prasant Kumar Parida, husband of the complainant had taken house building loan of Rs. 12,50,000/- from opposite party No. 2-Bank on 8.7.2004. At the instance of the bank, the said borrower proposed to cover the loan against the risk of death under “S.B.I. Life Super Surakhya for House loan borrowers of S.B.I.” for the sum equivalent to loan amount including interest as per E.M.I. schedule during the tenure of loan w.e.f. 12.7.2004 by opposite party No.1. The borrower submitted necessary papers duly filled in to opposite party No.2-Bank who in turn sent the same to opposite party No.1 together with a demand draft of Rs. 55,288/- dated 12.7.2004 and the declaration of borrower’s good health. Bank draft was prepared by debiting the loan account. Prasant Kumar Parida died on 27.3.2005. After his death the complainant asked the opposite parties to settle the claim. However, the claim was repudiated on ground of the policy being at the stage of proposal due to medical requirements by opposite party No.1 by the letter dated 29.12.2005. Complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar who by the order dated 29.1.2007 held that the repudiation was valid. The complainant was however, permitted to initiate legal action, if she so desired, against the concerned official(s) of opposite party No.1 who was responsible for keeping the premium amount on hold for more than 8 months without processing for medical examination of the borrower. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant filed complaint against both the opposite parties seeking certain reliefs which was contested by them by filing separate written versions. Opposite party No. 2-Bank alleged that the proposal form together with a draft of Rs. 55,288/- dated 12.7.2004 towards premium and good health declaration furnished by the borrower were forwarded by it to opposite party No.1. It was not the responsibility of the Bank to get the deceased borrower medically examined. Complaint thus, deserves to be dismissed against the bank. In its written version, it was admitted by opposite party No.1 that the deceased submitted the proposal form duly filled in along with the Declaration of good health and a bank draft of Rs. 55,288/- through opposite party No.2 to cover the loan advanced against the peril of death. After the submission of these papers it was the duty of the deceased to have enquired from opposite party No.1 as to when he has to appear for medical examination but he remained silent till his death. It was further alleged that though sufficient information was given to the borrower to appear for medical examination still he remained silent. Borrower was working as a Forest Ranger and the death report obtained from the Conservator of Forest revealed that he was having chronic heart problem and was on leave before death. Since the deceased avoided medical examination, non-acceptance of proposal did not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party No.1.

4. To be only noted that the complaint was allowed by the District Forum with direction to opposite party No.1 to r