Heard. 2. The District Forum appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 29.01.2016 allowed the complaint, inter alia holding that: “….. 6. The perusal of the proposal form ExOP1&2/2 reveals that on clause 2.1 on Ist page of the proposal form, the policy owner has been mentioned as Gurdeep Kaur and the signatures of said Gurdeep Kaur have been taken at the foot of the proposal form. Meaning thereby that the life insured under the policy is Gurdeep Kaur and not Harmanpreet Singh. This fact is also evident from the Axis Bank auto debit mandate on the letter pad of opposite party company placed after the proposal form wherein, in the column of policy holder name, the name of Gurdeep Kaur has been filled and the said document has been signed by Gurdeep Kaur for deduction of premium of Rs.50,000/- on yearly basis from the axis bank saving account No.399010100070188 of Gurdeep Kaur. So, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the policy in question belongs to Harmanpreet Singh. Said Gurdeep Kaur has admittedly died on 30/05/2014 as per death certificate Ex.C6. The opposite parties have miserably failed to prove their case. So, the complainant Harmandpreet Singh being a son and nominee of the deceased Gurdeep Kaur is entitled to the death claim of the deceased.…..” (para 6 of the Order) 3. The opposite party appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 06.10.2017 dismissed the appeal, inter alia holding that: “….. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid observation of the District Forum. We have also carefully gone through the Proposal Form Ex. OP-1&2/2. In column 2.1 against “Policy Owner” the name of Gurdeep Kaur is written and the signatures of said Gurdeep Kaur had been taken at the foot of the proposal form. Similarly in Axis Bank Auto Debit Mandate in the first column of “Policy holder Name” the name of Gurdeep Kaur is written. Moreover, the opposite parties have not proved on record the copy of the Insurance Policy in question, which must have been in their possession. The opposite parties also did not chose to file written reply to the averments made in the complaint and it is well settled law that in the absence of written reply evidence of the opposite parties cannot be looked into. We have not been convinced to take a different view than the view taken by the District Forum. “11. In view of our above discussion, we do not find infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.” (Para 10 & 11 of the Order) 4. This revision has been filed by the opposite party under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 06.10.2017 of the State Commission. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for both sides, and perused the record. 6. Section 21 (b) of the Act is as below: “…..to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” 7. The State Commission’s Order dated 06.10.2017 is well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not visible. 8. There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. 9. The revision petition is dismissed. | 
