The purpose for repaying the loan was to take back the title deeds of the property so that they could be pledged or mortgaged elsewhere to raise funds for her son's overseas education. The negative attitude of the bank in not releasing the title deeds was noted in a recent verdict by Chennai's District Consumer Disputes RedressalForum court in the S Sumathi versus Indian Bank (OP no. 184 of 1998) case.

The Forum, in its order dated April 1, 1999 said: ``The wanton and deliberate action of the opposite parties (Indian Bank represented by the CMD and by the General Manager, P & HR) in not releasing the documents to the complainant when their own highly placed officer has given an undertaking that there is no personal liability or loan in his personal name with the bank would go to show the `sadist' attitude on the part of the opposite parties.''

The Forum in its order admitted that it could not fix the responsibility of any official in this case, but said: ``Even if the forum is not able to fix the liability on a particular officer, the fact remains that there is inordinate delay of a year and a half in releasing the documents after the discharge of the loan by the complainant's husband. The explanation offered by the opposite parties are not acceptable. It is clearly mentioned that the title deeds may be released to thecomplainant as the same is not relevant to the CBI case.''

In Sundaram's case, the bank said it could part with the title deeds only after obtaining clearance from the CBI. But the moot point is the bank did not attempt to get a clearance from the CBI and it was only after a legal notice, dated April 17, 1997, was served on the bank it sought CBI clearance and that too after a year had elapsed.

A former senior Indian Bank official who was associated with Sundaram's case said: ``The delay (in releasing the title deeds) was because the bank wanted to verify whether the money used for repaying Sumathi's loan belonged to the bank.''

The Forum in its order added: ``Even though, the CBI has not sought for the (sic) freezing of the complainant's and her husband's accounts, the opposite parties (Indian Bank CMD and Indian Bank GM, P& HR) have chosen to address the CBI after the receipt of legal notice from the complainant's counsel to see that on some ground or other that the documents are not released to thecomplainant. The mental agony suffered by the complainant cannot be measured in terms of money.''

The Forum concluded: ``In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 as compensation towards mental agony with a cost of Rs 1,000 within two months from this date failing which the complainant is at liberty to invoke Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.'' Sundaram was suspended without notice on April 1, 1996, by the then chairman and managing director, S Rajagopal, for actions that were officially sanctioned either by the earlier chairman and managing director M Gopalakrishnan or the board. Rajagopal now heads the Bank of India, while Gopalakrishnan has since retired.

According to bank officials, under the normal course of action, the bank calls for an explanation from the bank official and if the explanation is not satisfactory,a charge-sheet is issued which may or may not be followed by suspension orders.

The former official who was associated with Sundaram's suspensionsaid: ``Sufficient explanation was sought before the suspension order was issued to Sundaram, and even if the board had ratified the loans sanctioned by him, he (Sundaram) cannot absolve himself unless proved innocent.''

Sundaram was charge-sheeted 11 months after being suspended. Sundaram faces criminal offences on disbursed loans totalling over Rs 600 crore in 14 accounts. Of this amount, Sundaram may be made accountable for about Rs 100 crore, the former Indian Bank official said.

According to Indian Bank's officials, Sundaram has been exonerated in three accounts by the Central Vigilance Committee,an independent inquiry body of the government of India.