The Supreme Court, refusing a citizen to satisfy his legal claim to the bank, drew attention to the need to study the bank contracts conditions before signing it

Citizen A. went to the court with a legal claim to the JSC «Kaspi Bank», JSC «Kaspi Insurance" to invalidate the points of a bank loan agreement, a voluntary insurance contract and return to its original position.

In the course of examining the bank application and the insurance company the court came to the conclusion that contradicts the plaintiff claims the condition p.1.14 contract. According to the contract the borrower at the time of a personal presence at the bank confirmed that he had read and accepted the General conditions, as an integral part of the bank loan agreement governing relations between the parties in order Art.388 CC. Payment of the commission to the bank for banking services were provided by the parties in the claim 3) p. 1 integrated banking services contract.

The plaintiff did not dispute the conclusion of the loan agreement and bank service agreement.

Taking into account that citizens and legal entities are free to contract, forcing the conclusion of the contract is not permitted, the court found the plaintiff's arguments untenable.

Examining the plaintiff's claim for recognition of voluntary insurance contract null and void, the court also concluded that the bank couldn’t induce the customer to conclude the contested contract, because the contract is signed by the client and the bank. In addition, the contract of insurance is voluntary, is only on request. Voluntariness as a sign of agreement as concluded in his terms, when a customer at any time has the right to terminate the insurance contract unilaterally and to receive back the amount of the insurance premium.

The Supreme Court upheld the first instance decision, and canceled the second instance decision, refused the satisfaction of the plaintiff claims.