1.       The present Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioners against the impugned order dated 26.03.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, Chhatisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in FA/13/173, whereby Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed.

2.       Petitioner No.1/Opposite Party No. 1 is a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956 engaged in commercial activity through its schemes to promote its business and having its registered office at Sahara India Bhawan-1, Kapurthala Complex, Lucknow and various branches across the country. Petitioners Nos.2 & 3 are Assistant Manager and General Manager respectively of Petitioner No.1. The Respondent/Complainant was the nominee of his wife, namely Smt. Savita Tiwari who took five Sahara Nirman Bonds (Scheme Code) 700002 from Petitioners/Opposite Parties as follows:-

3.       The case of the Complainant/Respondent is that his wife, Smt. Savita Tiwari passed away on 23.11.2011 in Chandu Lal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai. As per ‘Death Risk Cover’, under Clause 7 (c) of the Sahara Nirman Bond Certificate, Opposite Parties were required to make payment of Rs.12,000/-X 4= 48,000/- on Sahara Nirman Bond of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.26,000/- on a Nirman Bond of Rs.26,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs.74,000/-, which was not paid by the Opposite Parties. It was mentioned in Clause 7(b) of Death Risk Cover that “Bond Holder at the time of applying should be completely medically fit and should not have suffered from any chronic disease such as cancer, chest pain complaint in case of open heart surgery, unsuccessful liver disease, brain stroke or paralysis nor any of her organ like heart, liver or kidney would have been transplanted”. The risk cover was to be granted if the wife of the Complainant was not suffering from any of the abovementioned diseases. The Complainant claimed the Death Help and Death Maturity amount from Petitioners/Opposite Parties, vide Application dated 22.12.2011. Despite personally approaching Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 for payment of the said amount, the Opposite Parties did not pay the abovementioned amount to the Complainant. Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 23.05.2012, refused to make payment of the claimed amount of Rs.74,000/- stating that the wife of the Complainant was suffering from Chronic Disease. Aggrieved by refusal of payment, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 331/2012 before the District Forum with the following prayer:-

“(a) Double of the claimed amount of Rs.74,000/- as claimed amount of Rs.74,000/- as claimed in the Claim Form which equals to Rs.1,48,000/- may kindly be awarded on account of physical and mental agony against the non-Applicants;;

(c) Appropriate cost of proceedings and advocate fee may kindly be awarded against the non-Applicants.”

4.       Opposite Parties resisted the Complaint by filling Written Statement contending that before the investment in Sahara Nirman Bond, terms and conditions of the Scheme were read over and explained to the Investor. After the expiry of 48 months of the Investment, as per the terms and conditions and chart mentioned in Rule 3, the investor had a right to get the redemption value. Apart from that, in the event of death of the Bond Holder, there was a provision to give benefit of death risk cover to the nominee. As per clause 7 (b), the Bond Holder should be medically fit, and should not be suffering from any Chronic disease. The bond holder Smt. Savita Tiwari passed away in Chandu Lal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai on 23.11.2011. As per Death Report, the cause of death was mentioned as Cardio Respiratory Failure which mentioned in the remark column as D.M. H.T.N. Hypothyroidism Incisional Hernia, Acute Respiratory Distress Cardiopulm Arrest i.e. Bond Holder had been found to be suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, HTN and Hypertension, Hypothyroidism. Further, as per the prescription of Dr. Manoj Dani, Government District Hospital, Durg, dated 03.02.2011, 11,02,2011, 14.03.2011 and 30.05.2011, the bond Holder was found to be complaining of blood sugar and blood pressure. It is established from Medical Literatures and Circulars issued by World Health Organization that Hypothyroidism and Diabetes existed in the body for a long duration and Smt. Savita Tiwari was suffering from abovementioned diseases prior to her death. The Complainant had full knowledge of his wife suffering from the abovementioned diseases prior to her death, but had concealed the same from the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties, therefore, according to the conditions mentioned in Clause 7 were not liable to pay Rs.74,000/- or its double i.e., Rs.1,48,000/- under the Death Help Scheme to the Complainant. The Opposite Party did not commit any deficiency in service and were not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant.  

5.       The District Forum after hearing Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, vide Order dated 02.02.2013, allowed the Complaint holding that the Bond Holder, Late Smt. Savita Tiwari, was not suffering from any chronic disease before making the investment under Sahara Nirman Bond Scheme and held that the Opposite Parties/Petitioners were liable to pay the invested amount which was Rs.74,000/- as the per the rules under Sahara Nirman Bond Scheme to the Complainant.

6.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties preferred First Appeal No.13/173 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 26.03.2013 dismissed the Appeal with the observation that there was no material on the basis of which it could be said that the deceased was suffering from any critical illness on the date of the Bond. It was further observed that the Appellants had not filed any medical paper or Affidavit of any Doctor in support of the defence that the deceased was suffering from any critical illness at the time of the purchase of the Bond. The State Commission, therefore, held that the District Forum had not committed any mistake in allowing the Complaint and the impugned order did not call for any interference.

7.       Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, Petitioners/Opposite Parties filed the present Revision Petition.

8.        Heard the Learned Counsel for both the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submitted that both the Fora below failed to appreciate that the illness such as Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus and Hypothyroidism become fatal gradually. The medical history of the deceased had been established beyond doubt and her death was caused due to illness only. The State Commission also failed to appreciate the fact that it was incumbent upon the Bond Holder to disclose the disease she was suffering from at the time of purchasing the Bond. He further submitted that the Scheme under which the Bonds were issued by Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited, vide order dated 31.08.2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had been declared as void with direction as follows:-

“Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited to refund the amounts collected through RHPs dated 13.03.2008 and 16.10.2009 along with interest @ 15% per annum to SEBI from the date of receipt of the subscription amount till the date of repayment, within a period of three months, which was to be deposited in a Nationalized Bank bearing maximum interest rate”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the scheme was bad in law as it was issued without the sanction of SEBI Regulatory Authority. In view of clear direction from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner averred that it is not liable to refund any money to the Complainant directly as that would amount to overreaching the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and any benefit relating from a void scheme cannot be enforced. As the Petitioner had already deposited the amount in terms of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Petitioner had nothing to do with these Bonds or the benefit accruing from them. The Petitioner herein is not a necessary party in the instant case and the Complaint in the first instance suffered from misjoinder and non-joinder of Parties.

9.       Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the grounds taken by the Petitioner in the instant Revision Petition are not correct. The District Forum had discussed in detail the medical prescription and evidence and rightly observed that the Bond Holder Smt. Savita Tiwari was not suffering from any chronic or fatal disease before making investment under the Sahara Nirman Bond Scheme, which was confirmed by the State Commission.

10.     Facts of the case are that the deceased wife of the Respondent invested in Nirman Bonds floated by the Petitioner Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited between 14.02.2009 to 24.02.2009, where the Respondent D.K. Tiwari was appointed as nominee. The wife of the Respondent died on 23.11.2011 due to Acute Respiratory distress and Cardio Respiratory failure. As per the condition of Clause 7 of the Bond, in the event of death of the Bond Holder, the benefit of the death risk cover was to be granted to the nominee. However, the Petitioner failed to pay the said amount to the Respondent, hence the Respondent preferred Consumer Complaint No. 331/2012 before the District Forum, Durg.  

11.     The ground taken by Petitioners is that the wife of the Petitioner was chronic patient of Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension. The District Forum observed that on the basis of the medical literature it could not be proved that Smt. Savita Tiwari was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, HTN and Hypertension Hypothyroidism for a long duration. State Commission also observed that the prescriptions of Dr. Manoj Dami showed that Smt. Savita Tiwari was undergoing treatment for Hypothyroid and Diabetes. In the medical examination dated 12.02.2011, 14.03.2011 and 30.05.2011 the doctor found that she had very small symptoms of Diabetes and advised to take regular diet and did not find any chronic or fatal disease.  In paras-8 to 13, the District Forum dealt with the issue of chronic disease in detail. The Petitioner relied on clause 7 (b) of the Bond which reads as follows: -

“7.    Death Risk Cover:

B-      Bond holder at the time of applying should be completely medically fit and should not have suffered from any chronic disease such as cancer, chest pain complaint in case of open heart surgery, unsuccessful liver disease, brain stroke or paralysis nor any of her organ like heart, liver or kidney would have been transplanted.”

In the death certificate of the disease the cause of death is shown to be “Acute Respiratory Distress, Cardio Respiratory Failure.” District Forum further observed that the Opposite Party had not produced any documentary evidence that before her death Smt. Savita Tiwari was taking treatment for heart disease. Diabetes and hypertension are lifestyle diseases and the argument of the Petitioner that the bond holder was suffering from chronic disease is, therefore, rejected.

12.     The second limb of argument of the Petitioner is that in view of the direction of the Supreme Court dated 31.08.2012 the Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. In this regard, we would like to mention that the Petitioner had not produced any judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court restraining the Consumer Forum to entertain the Consumer Complaint. Moreover, it is not the case of the Petitioners that in compliance of the order dated 31.08.2012 they had refunded the amount to the bond holder with interest @ 15%. Further, in the written statement field before the District Forum the Petitioners/Opposite Parties had not taken this ground. Now, they cannot be permitted to come with a new ground in the Revision Petition.  

13.     The 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 269  has held as under: -

14.     Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“23. The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

15.     The State Commission was perfectly justified in dismissing the Appeal. we see no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. All pending applications are hereby disposed of.