1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 15.06.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 251 of 2016 in which order dated 14.10.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Morena (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 205 of  2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 15.06.2020 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as  Complainant) was Appellant and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as OPs were Respondents in the said FA No. 251 of 2016 before the State Commission the Revision Petitioner was complainant and Respondents were OPs before the District Forum in the CC no. 205 of 2014.  For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondents on 24.09.2021.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 18.04.2023 and 06.04.2023 respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that on 28.04.2011 complainant’s uncle had taken a life insurance policy through the opposite party / insurance company for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in which he had nominated complainant as his nominee. The premium was payable quarterly and the same was due on 28.07.2011. The complainant claims that the policy holder submitted the premium on 30.08.2011 at about 6.30 p.m. i.e. after two days of the expiry of grace period of one month.  As per complainant’s version, the said amount was deposited only after LIC affirmed to revive the said policy upon receiving the letter from the policy holder and claimed that the amount could not have been deposited as a premium if the policy had expired / not revived.  The policy holder expired on the same day i.e. 30.08.2011 at 8.30 p.m. due to sudden heart attack near a railway crossing. The claim was filed by the complainant on 18.04.2012 but was rejected by the opposite party on 11.11.2013. Thereafter, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2015.  Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2020.  Hence the complainant is before this Commission now in the present Revision Petition.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 15.06.2020 of the State Commission mainly / interalia on the following grounds:

(i)      The Forums below have failed to appreciate that the policy was active at the time of death of policy holder since the premium was received after approving the letter written by the policy holder requesting to revive the policy.

(ii)     Filing of the claim after 7 months of death of policy holder is not sufficient reason to deny the claim.  The death of the policy holder is not disputed and mere suspicion of the insurance company towards the cause of the death cannot be a ground to deny the claim itself. The death was caused near the railway track due to heart attack and, therefore, no FIR was lodged.

6.       During the final hearing on 28.06.2023, the petitioner was absent.  He was also absent on earlier dates i.e. 10.03.2022, 23.06.2022 and 20.12.2022. The counsel for the respondents was heard.  Accordingly, the case is being decided on merits on the basis of the revision petition, written submissions filed by the petitioner as well as the respondents and other case records.  The reasons for challenging the order of State Commission advanced by the Petitioner have been summed up in the previous paras.  The respondents argued that both the State Commission and District Forum have given a concurrent findings leading to dismissal of the complaint and have rightly held that death of the Life Assured ( LA ) was under suspicious circumstances and no FIR was registered and even the information given by the LA in the proposal form regarding his age was false as the school from which he got the birth certificate was not even in existence during the date when it is being tried to prove that LA was studying there.   As the premium was not paid even within the grace period of 30 days from the due date, the policy lapsed and was not in force on 30.08.2011 when LA died.  It is admitted by the petitioner that the premium was paid on 30.08.2011 itself at around 6.30 p.m. with an application.  However, the respondent / insurance company had not taken any decision in respect of revival of the policy till the death of LA,  as per the petitioner, LA had died at around 8.30 p.m. on 30.08.2011.  The petitioner had made two different statements regarding the cause of death of the LA.  While filing his claim,  the petitioner stated that LA had died due to an accident on the railway track, but in the complaint, he stated that LA had died due to sudden heart failure.  Both the Foras below have rightly held that as LA had died under suspicious circumstances, the information about the death of LA was given after seven months of the death,  no FIR was lodged,  the LA has furnished a forged and fabricated documents regarding his age.

7.       In the present case there are concurrent findings of State Commission and District Forum about non admissibility of the claim.  Both the Foras below have given a well reasoned order.  We find no infirmity or illegality or material irregularity in the Order dated 15.06.2020 of the State Commission.  Hence, the same is upheld.  As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

8.       For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.

9.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.