ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member.—The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 (a) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 12.09.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.71 of 2019 in which order dated 03.01.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No.42 of 2017 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 12.09.2022 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 respectively) were Respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the State Commission and Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 21.04.2023. Parties filed Written Arguments on 04.10.2023 (Petitioner), 03.05.2024 (Respondent No. 1) and 15.12.2023 (Respondent No. 2) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

(i) The Complainant and her husband entered into a loan agreement with Respondent No. 1 on 27.12.2012 and 13.11.2015, securing a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- in both the loan agreement, with both listed as borrowers. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 applied for insurance coverage with Respondent No. 2 for the loan, but only the Complainant’s name was mentioned on the policy, excluding her husband despite him being a joint borrower.

(ii) Despite this error, insurance premiums were deducted from the joint account of the Complainant and her husband. Following her husband’s death in a road accident, the insurance claim was denied by Respondent No. 2, stating that the husband was not insured under the policy. The Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum demanding the clearance of the outstanding loan and compensation for mental distress. However, the complaint was dismissed by the Forum on 03.01.2019, and an appeal to the State Commission was similarly dismissed on 12.09.2022.

(iii) The Complainant argues that the insurance policy should have covered both borrowers, and that negligence by the Respondents led to the denial of insurance benefits. She seeks relief for the outstanding loan and compensation for the inconvenience caused.

5. Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 12.09.2022 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

i. State Commission failed to appreciate that the husband of the petitioner comes within the definition of Consumer as per section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

ii. State Commission failed to appreciate that payment for service by Respondents was paid from the bank account of petitioner’s husband jointly held with the petitioner.

iii. State Commission failed to appreciate that Respondent No. 2 was duty bound to check the loan agreements executed jointly by the Petitioner and her husband with Respondent No. 1 before issuing the insurance policies, when application was made by Respondent No. 1 on behalf of petitioner and her husband being the borrowers as per the loan agreement.

iv. State Commission failed to appreciate that Respondents are liable for deficiency in service for not mentioning the name of husband of the Petitioner in insurance policies and erroneously writing occupation of petitioner as ‘service’ with a monthly salary of Rs.22,000/- even though she is actually a housewife and in fact it was her husband who was in service and having the monthly salary of Rs.22,000/-.

v. State Commission failed to appreciate that petitioner and her husband are the joi