The banks when granting a mortgage credit contractually require the debtor to pay the lile insurance premium for the clebtor group that is hirecl by the bank through a bidding process through which it establishes the scope of the insurance contract, in which the bank is the borrower, the debtor is the insured and the onerous beneficiary is the same bank. This practice rnay eventually constitute an abusive clause, since: (i) it is not compulsory insurance, (ii) for the existence of the debtor group life insurance the consent of the insured-debtor is not necessary, ancl (iii) the Contractual demand is the result of an abuse of the dominant positlon held by the financial institution against the financial consumer. Consequently we have that in a mortgage loan for housing financing the requirement of a group life insurance is constituted in an abuse of dominant position that is instrumentalized through the inclusion of saicl requirement within the contract of mutual, promissory note and mortgage, which lt is an abusive clause. Not only for the abuse of the dominant position but because only by law can compulsory insurance be created, the benefit of the insurance is for the financial institution and who pays the premium is the debtor who paradoxically is nota contracting party in the insurance contract, but rnust "Adhere" to the group lile policy that the bank has previously tendered to secure its portfolio. This assurance of your portfolio through the clebtor group life insurance, mainly benefits the bank allows you to securitize your portfolio and release resources from the established provisions, since when an active operation has additional security, the amount far which the provision should be included of portfolio clecreases.