REKHA GUPTA Revision Petition No. 3154 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 23.6.2014, passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (short, “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.24 of 2010. 2. Brief facts of the case as per petitioner/complainant are that a representative of respondent no.3/OP No.3 had explained the policy details to him that this investment policy was for one year only, wherein the investment was lump-sum and after maturity of 3 years policy holder could get handsome returns as per the fund value. Accordingly, petitioner accepted the policy and signed the documents and handed over a cheque of Rs.2 lakhs to respondent no.3. After acceptance of policy and payment of amount, petitioner received the policy documents in 15 days but as he was not able to understand English language, he could not understand the writings and kept the policy away in his safe. 3. After one year, the petitioner received an intimation letter from Birla Sun Life Insurance Company/respondent nos.1 and 2 for which he called his colleague to read the matter. It was mentioned in the letter, that the next premium of Rs.1,99,514/- was due on 27.12.2008. Further, the policy premium had to be paid for 15 years and each year, petitioner would have to pay Rs.2 lakhs. He immediately contacted respondent nos.1 to 3 to but to no avail they fobbed him off by saying that he had accepted the policy and signed on the papers, so was liable to pay the premium and if he failed to pay the premium of Rs.2 lakhs per annum, he would lose the entire amount which he had invested so far. Petitioner, therefore, prayed in his complaint that : “Respondent no.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.2 lakhs vide policy No.001377500 of Birla Sun Life Insurance Co.Ltd. with 15% interest today to the petitioner. Respondent no.1 to 3 may kindly be saddle with compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental harassment to him. Any other suitable relief found entitle may kindly be granted to petitioner, in the light of justice and fair trail and oblige.” 4. Respondent nos.1 and 2/opposite party nos.1 and 2 in their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aurangabad (short, ‘District Forum’) have stated that ; “2. The complainant, Shri Sriram Balchandra Joshi had applied for the Saral Jeevan Plan policy for a face amount of Rs.16,60,000/- of the respondents for his spouse Mrs.Sangita Joshi (life assured) with a paying period and a benefit period for 15 years by his application dated 31.12.2007. After due processing of his application, the life assured was issued a medical policy bearing No.001377500. 3. The complainant was given detailed description about the said policy features including all the charges that shall be levied on the same and was also appraised with its terms and conditions before signing of the said application form. It was only after being completely aware as regards the risks and consequences of the said policy and the terms and conditions attached therewith that the complainant applied for the same vide his application dated 31.12.2007. 4. Clause VI of the said application form captioned “PAYMENT DETAILS” specifically provide that the life assured had opted for annual more for a premium amount upto Rs.1,99,514/- with paying period as 15 years. It is evident from perusal of the said application that the complainant was aware of this option being mentioned in the policy as well as quantum of premium and has by his free will and consent selected to pay the premium “annually”. 5. The complainant has signed the said application and has nowhere challenged the veracity and authenticity of his signature, which also implies that he had clear understanding of the contents of the said application and the same were acceptable to him. Since, the complainant had opted for an annual mode, he was supposed to pay the renewal premium of Rs.1,99,514/- on December 28, 2008 and so on. However, it is evident from the above that the complainant failed to pay the said renewal premiums on the due dates. Under the said policy plan, it being a post ULIP plan, the policy installment premiums have to be paid on or before the premium due dates. A grace period of 30 days from the premium due date is provided as per the applicable regulations and in this case the respondents do not receive the full payment of the premium due, the policy together with all its coverage get lapsed at the end of grace period. Under these circumstances, after the expiry of the grace period i.e. after 28.1.2009, the said policy got lapsed with effect from 28.1.2009 due to non-receipt of renewal premium. 5. Respondent no.3 in their reply before the District Forum has stated that ; “2. The respondent no.3 submits that the respondent no.3 – Bank works as an agent of the other respondents i.e. Insurance Companies and explain the benefits of the policy along with the representative of the respondent nos.1 and 2. The contents of the policy form are only explained to the customer, the same are also given to the customers for their perusal before signing the agreement. In the present case, the complainant did not raise any objection either at the time of signing of the agreement of the policy or after receiving the policy documents, it was first time the complainant raised the objection in respect of the premium, when respondent nos.1 and 2 sent a demand letter for the next premium. The respondent submits that the customer raised a frivolous allegation in order to avoid his liability. The respondent submits that the complainant can read and write English language very well, because he sent one letter to the respondent no.3 dated 23.1.2009 same was written in English. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the complainant do not understand English reading and writing is incorrect.” 6. District Forum vide order dated 30.1.2009 while dismissing the complaint observed that :- “The forum has gone through the document filed by all the parties. Complainant has signed the papers of the policy, therefore, policy is accepted by the complainant. If policy is accepted then it means that terms and conditions are also accepted. Complainant has stated in the complaint about the receiving of policy papers within 15 days from the date of payment of first premium. If complainant could have carefully gone through the documents and convey to the respondents about non-continuation with the policy. Therefore, the argument advanced for complainant, which states that after lapse of one year and after receiving a letter from respondents, complainant came to know about the policy are not proper. After taking all the necessary information of the policy and going through the terms and conditions, complainant has signed the policy. Therefore, terms and conditions are mandatory to him. As per the Insurance Act and terms and conditions of policy due to non-payment of premium this policy has been lapsed. Therefore, complainant is not liable get back the amount, therefore, forum is dismissing the complaint. As per the discussion made above and all the documents on records forum is passing a following order. ORDER Complaint of the complainant is dismissed.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission in its impugned order dated 23.6.2014 observed as under :- “We thus heard the submission of all the counsel and perused the record. It seems from the record that proposal form was signed by the complainant and his wife. In the said proposal form, it is clearly mentioned that premium mode will yearly and premium amount will be Rs.1,99,514/-. After getting the policy there was cooling period of 15 days. But complainant kept mum near about one year after getting policy document. When he received the letter to deposit the premium after one year of commencement of the policy, he issued legal notice. In our view it was obligatory on the part of appellant to deposit premium. In default of his payment this policy became lapsed. Therefore, he has no legal right to claim any amount from respondent nos.1 to 3. There does not exist any relationship as consumer and service provider between appellant and respondents at the time of filing of the complaint. District Consumer Forum rightly appreciated the facts and evidence in proper perspective. We do not want to disturb the reason recorded by the District Consumer Forum. Hence, we pass the following order. - Appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to cost.”
8. Hence, the revision petition. 9. We have heard the petitioner in person and carefully gone through the record. 10. The only defence of the petitioner was that he is middle class man, who was working as an “Operator” in Bajaj Auto and cannot read and understand English. He understood from respondent no.3 that he had to pay only a one time premium and term of the policy was only for three years. He further stated that when he got the policy within 15 days, he did not read it as he does not understand English and hence, he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. 11. We cannot accept his explanation for not going through the policy when he received it. He himself admitted in his complaint that when he received an intimation letter from Birla Sun Life Insurance Company after a year, he called his colleague to read the letter and explain its contents to him He had no explanation as to why he could not get the policy papers seen when he received the same. Had he done so he would have returned the policy within a period of 15 days if he was not happy with the terms and condition of the same. Hence, both the foras below have rightly dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs.Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ; “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.” 13. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. Since, the both the foras below have given detailed and reasoned order which do not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to cost. | 
