Judgment : Per SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. Seeking a direction upon the respondents to settle the education loan account bearing No.10924066990, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner took loan for education of his son for his admission in a 4 years Bachelor of Engineering course at S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu. The loan for Rupees Four Lacs was sanctioned by the respondent-Bank vide letter dated 05.10.2006. Unfortunately, the son of the petitioner namely, K.V.N.N. Aditya died and, the petitioner under an impression that the said loan was covered under the “SBI Life Insurance”, understood that the loan which was disbursed has been settled by the insurance company. However, the petitioner received the statement of the loan account from the respondent-State Bank of India which reflected the outstanding loan amount. The respondent-SBI rejected the objection of the petitioner on the ground that the insurance claim made by the petitioner was not tenable and the petitioner was directed to make payment of the loan amount. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that letter dated 05.10.2006 clearly discloses that the loan granted for the son of the petitioner was insured with SBI Life under “Edushield”. The said letter further discloses that all the security papers were duly executed by the petitioner and thus, it has to be presumed that the insurance covered for the said loan was duly taken. Referring to Clause 2(a) and Clause 11 of letter dated 05.10.2006, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Bank is bound by the contents of its own letter and it cannot recover the loan amount from the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-SBI submits that the petitioner was required to execute the insurance documents for taking the insurance shield for the education loan, which he failed to do so and thus, the petitioner is liable to repay the loan taken for education of his son. 5. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent-SBI submits that the petitioner was required to execute the insurance documents for taking the insurance shield for the education loan, which he failed to do so and thus, the petitioner is liable to repay the loan taken for education of his son. 5. A perusal of letter dated 05.10.2006 by which the loan for Rupees Four Lacs was sanctioned to the petitioner for education expenses of his son for his admission in a 4 years Bachelor of Engineering course at S.R.M. Institute of Science and Technology, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu would disclose that the loan sanctioned to the petitioner could have been insured under “Edushield” of “SBI Life”. It further discloses that the premium for the loan cover was Rs.3605/-. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not asserted that it has executed necessary documents for taking insurance shield for the education loan for his son and thus, he did not pay the premium amount for the insurance. It is thus an admitted position that the petitioner failed to take the “Edushield” of “SBI Life” for the insurance cover for the education loan. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that it would be deemed to have been covered under letter dated 05.10.2006 is liable to be rejected. The insurance cover is a separate agreement with the insured and the insurance company. There is no concluded contract between the insurance company and the insured. Moreover, had there been an insurance cover for the education loan, it would have given rise to a consumer dispute. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in view of the unfortunate incident in which the son of the petitioner died, the respondent-State Bank of India may take a lenient view insofar as, the interest on the outstanding principal amount is concerned. Petition dismissed.