1. The Present Revision has been filed by the Petitioners against the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 120 of 2016.

2.      Along with the Revision Petition, IA/1280/2021, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the Petitioners. The Registry of this Commission has calculated the delay as 54 days. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, IA/1280/2021 is allowed and delay condoned.

3.     Case of the Complainant/Respondent is that her husband Mr. Vindhyachal Singh purchased Century Plus Policy No.0077721446 from the Opposite Parties/Petitioners after making a ‘Single premium deposit’ of Rs.60,000/-. The Complainant was the nominee in the Policy. In the proposal form the husband of Complainant opted for “single premium” but in the Policy issued it was marked as “annual premium.” On the next day of receipt of the Policy the Life Assured raised the grievance with the Agent and S.T.M., who assured that the Policy will be converted into a Single premium Policy. The Life Assured died on 15.09.2012. The Complainant submitted the claim with Mau Branch of the Opposite Parties. The Branch Manager stated that the Policy of her husband had lapsed due to non-payment of premium and was subsequently foreclosed as per the terms and conditions of the Policy and Rs.18,462.98/- was paid towards foreclosure value on 22.12.2012, in accordance with the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy. Aggrieved by this, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.CC/90/2013 before the District Forum, Mau with the following prayer:-

“Therefore, it is prayed that I be given the single premium policy insurance amount of Rs.3 Lakhs and fund value of Rs.60,000/- based on current market value and also a sum of Rs.40,000/- for mental suffering during this period along with interest amount till the time it’s actually settled. It’s requested that the other party be ordered in this matter so I get the due justice.”

4.     The Opposite Parties/Petitioners resisted the Complaint by filling Written Statement. It was stated that the Insurance Policy had lapsed due to non-payment of the premium. The Policy was, therefore, foreclosed and Rs.18,462.98 was paid on 22.12.2012. After payment of the first premium, several reminders were sent to the Life Assured for payment of renewal premium, who failed to do so. It was submitted that the Complainant did not raise any objection against foreclosure of the Policy within the “free look period” of 15 days. There was therefore no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

5.     The District Forum after hearing Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, vide Order dated 07.10.2015, partly allowed the Complaint holding that the Complainant/Respondent had opted for single premium which was changed to annual premium by an employee of the Insurance Company and held Opposite Parties/Petitioners deficient in service. The District directed as follows:-

“The complaint is partially accepted and the opposite parties / insurance company is ordered to pay the insurance to the complainant within 2 months of the decision.

(1) The Sum Insured shall pay an amount of Rs. 3.00.000 / Three Lakhs, with an interest rate of 10% which will be inclusive of the actual payment from the date of filing the complaint.

(2) Pay Rs.10,000/ - (Ten thousand only) as compensation.

(3)Also pay Rs. 3000/ - as a litigation expense.”

6.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, the Opposite Parties/Petitioners preferred Appeal No.120/2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 18.02.2020, dismissed the Appeal. The Opposite Parties have, therefore, filed the instant Revision Petition.

7.     Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Opposite Parties on admission and also carefully perused the record. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Complaint was barred by limitation as the Respondent/Complainant opted for the Policy on 20.12.2007 and filed the Consumer Complaint after the expiry of limitation of 2 years. He submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the Insurer and the Insured are bound by the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy which mandated 15 days “free look period”. If the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy were not correct or as per the assurance given to the Policy holder, then the Policy holder could have cancelled the Policy. It was submitted that no documents were placed by the Respondent/Complainant to prove that any request for cancellation of the Policy was made by the Respondent/Complainant during the said “free look period” of 15 days which crystalizes the fact that the Respondent/Complainant was satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policy. He also submitted that the Life Assured was aware that the premium was to be paid annually. He did not care to exercise the free look option of cancellation and (later he) could not claim that the Policy was a single premium Policy at a belated stage in the guise of mis-selling of Policy which is untenable. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the Judgment of this Commission in Mohan Lal Benal versus ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (decided on 16/10/2012); and Harish Kumar Chadha versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (decided on 07/10/2013) wherein this Commission had clearly held that if the Insured was not satisfied with the Policy taken, he/she should avail the option of returning the Policy within the ‘Free-look Period’ of 15 days from the date of receipt of the Policy. Learned Counsel also submitted that as per Regulation 8 of the IRDA if any Agent violates any code of conduct of IRDA or commits any fraud in his transactions, it is the Insurance Agent who alone was to be held liable and for his acts of omission or commission the Insurance Company cannot be held liable.

8.      Facts of the case are that the husband of the Complainant purchased Century Plus Policy No.0077721446 from the Opposite Parties/Petitioners after making a ‘Single premium deposit’ of Rs.60,000/-. The Complainant was the nominee in the Policy. In the proposal form the husband of Complainant opted for “single premium” but in the Policy issued it was marked as “annual premium.” It was alleged that the frequency of premium was changed from “single” to “annual” and grievance was raised by the life assured on the next day of receipt of the Policy with the concerned Agent and S.T.M. Assurance was given that the Policy would be converted into a Single Premium Policy. The Life Assured died on 15.09.2012. After that, the Complainant contacted the Mau Branch of the Opposite Parties for the Claim. In reply, the Branch Manager stated that the Policy of her husband had lapsed due to non-payment of premium and was subsequently foreclosed as per the terms and conditions of the Policy. Rs.18,462.98/- was paid towards foreclosure value on 22.12.2012, in accordance with the Policy Terms.

9.       The cause of action arose on 15.09.2012, when the husband of the Complainant died and Complaint was filed on 16.05.2013 before the District Forum, which was well within the Limitation Period. On merits, the core issue in this case relates to the frequency of premium amount of the Policy. The proposal form duly filled by the Deceased Life Assured, as available on record shows that the Policy period was noted as 10 years, while against the Premium Frequency there is a tick against Single which was struck and annual box has been ticked. This is corroborated by the affidavit of the agent Mr. Raju Singh which reads as: -

“2 - That I asseverate that in the above mentioned lawsuit we oath bearer work as an agent at Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company and my code number is 1000474467.

3.That I asseverate that the insurance of insured Vindhyachal Singh was done by me as an agent in which the insurance of a lump sum policy of Rs.60,000 of single premium was done and single premium was also written and marked on each form.

4. That I asseverate that the then STM Shakti Singh has made the cut off in the form because at that time the form used to be filled and sent to the Varanasi office and from there all the action was done. At the time when the proposal form was filled, only a single premium was written on the form and the insured was also ready to do a single premium policy and the process of filling all the forms was done by the STM Shakti Singh before the insured and we swearer and at that time the single premium receipts were marked only and later cut off by him.”

10.     According to the Petitioners/Opposite Parties the sum insured was Rs.3,00,000/- and the premium amount was Rs.60,000/- for 10 years. At an the annual premium of Rs.60,000/-for 10 years the premium amount would come to Rs.6,00,000/- for a sum insured of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is, therefore, clear that frequency of the Premium was subsequently changed from “single” to “annual” by Mr. Shakti Singh, S.T.M. Both the Fora below observed that Insurance Company was vicariously liable for the wrong done by its employee Mr. Shakti Singh, STM. Insured should not be punished for the wrong act of Insurer. The Petitioners failed to prove that there was any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Fora below.

11.     Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269has held as under: -

“13.        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.”

12.     I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. Petitioners failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.