Bank officials cheat widow,under probe

According to Mehta,she and her husband had applied for a home loan of Rs 31 lakh that was sanctioned by the bank in 2006. The amount included Rs 1 lakh as insurance cover provided by another company and the EMI was worked out to Rs 35,235. Mehta claimed that the EMI was paid regularly till 2008 and there was no correspondence of any kind from the bank regarding shortfall in payments.

When Mehta’s husband Prakash passed away in August 2008,her son Pratik informed the bank about the same through an e-mail. He also mentioned that since the loan amount was covered by the insurance paid by Prakash,the bank should stop deducting the monthly EMIs from his account and recover the same from the insurance company.

However,she received a mail from the bank stating that there was no insurance cover and that the insurance premium had already been refunded to Prakash in May 2007. Mehta pointed out that no refund was effected in her husband’s account in May 2007. On further query,she was informed that the insurance company had declined the amount and refunded the same back to the account.

Mehta’s lawyer Shailesh Kantharia pointed out that if that was the case then the borrower should have been informed by the bank or the insurance company,which was not done here.

Kantharia argued that it was done purposely to siphon the borrower’s money paid towards the insurance premium.

The petition states that in spite of numerous correspondences,the bank did not treat the matter seriously,thereby causing tremendous loss and mental harassment. She also issued a legal notice and although the bank did not reply to the notice,she was informed that the insurance company had not admitted the insurance policy and the same was refunded to the bank in October 2007.