PER HONLE MR. JUSTICE K. S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 25/10/2012, passed by the State Commission Haryana in First Appeal No. 900/2012, Unit Trust of India vs. Kamlesh Chhabra, by which while dismissing appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent had taken unit of Rs. 32,000/- as per scheme called SCUP of Unit Trust of India having membership Certificate No. SC0040610000050 on 20.10.1999 through the opposite party No. 3 and was provided medical insurance cover, the premium of which was to be deducted from the policy of the complainant and as per details provided to her, seven installments were to be deducted. As per offered documents, a maximum sum of Rs. 5,625/- was to be deducted as premium for first four years and thereafter a maximum sum of Rs. 4,975/- for next three years. The complainant received his account statement dated 07.01.2008 in which she was stunned to note that the premium of October, 2006 was deducted @ 8655.11 and a sum of Rs. 13,274.30 as addition premium from 2001-2005, whereas a sum of Rs. 4,975/- was to be deducted from the account of complainant from October, 2005 but no intimation was given to her. Thus, the amount of Rs. 13,274.30 deducted on account of additional premium, was illegal. The opposite party had wrongly and illegally deducted a sum of Rs. 16,954.41 in excess from the account of the complainant and the balance amount of Rs. 12,578/- was not paid to the complainant. The annuity amount of Rs. 2,900/- per annum was to be paid by the opposite party to take care of complainant non-hospitalization expenses after attaining the age of 58 years but the opposite parties had not paid even a single penny to her. 3. In spite of notice, amount illegally deducted was not refunded, alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties-petitioners, complainant filed complaint before the District forum. Petitioner appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement the opposite parties took the plea that the complaint had been filed alleging excess deduction of premium payment of Rs. 16,954.41, residual amount of Rs. 12,578/- and annuity amount of Rs. 2,900/- and prayed for refunding of Rs. 29,532.41 and annuity amount of Rs. 2,900/- from 15.11.2010 together with interest @ 24% till date of payment, which was beyond the scheme provision of SCUP and the claim for refund was imaginary. The complainant had resorted to file the complaint with false and non existent claims and the same was liable to be dismissed in toto and investor was entitled to receive the benefits as per the scheme provisions. The balance outstanding units as of 18.02.2008 was 350.897 and accordingly, the residual units had been redeemed @ Rs. 23.2257 per unit and the redemption cheque dated 22.02.2008 for Rs. 8,149.83 was dispatched to the complainant and the same stood paid on 04.03.2008. Denying any kind of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, it was prayed that complaint merited dismissal. 4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 12,578/- balance amount of the scheme plus Rs. 2,900/- per year annuity for the period from 20.10.2004 to 04.03.2008 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and further awarded Rs. 3,300/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the opposite parties was dismissed by the State Commission, vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on erroneous assumptions and has recorded wrong facts in the order, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the State Commission. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by the State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed. 8. The State Commission, after recording observations of the District Forum, dismissed the appeal on the basis of following observations:- aving considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the observation made by the District Consumer Forum, as mentioned above, we are of the view that it is the appellant-opposite party who had closed the scheme without issuing prior notice to the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant had incurred the expenses of hospitalization for her medical treatment to the tune of Rs. 32,000/- at the age of 53 years and Rs. 20,800/- at the age of 61 years and thus, as per terms and conditions of this scheme. Even otherwise, as per agreement executed between the parties the alleged policy cannot be terminated without issuing prior notice to the complainant. Since, the opposite parties failed to issue any notice to the complainant, therefore, they were bound to pay the abovesaid amount to the complainant. The District Consumer Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case has rightly accepted the complaint and issued directions to the opposite parties. Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed. 9. Perusal of aforesaid observations clearly reveals that the State Commission dismissed the appeal on the assumptions that petitioner terminated scheme without issuing any prior notice to the complainant, whereas complainant has nowhere challenged termination of scheme in the complaint. Not only this, the State Commission observed that complaint incurred expenses of hospitalization to the tune of Rs. 32,000/- at the age of 53 years and Rs. 20,800/- at the age of 61 years. In such circumstances, complainant was entitled for aforesaid payment. We do not find any such claim in the complaint. Complainants, in the complaint prayed for refund of Rs. 29,532.41 and Rs. 2,900/- per annum from 15.11.2003 till its realization and has nowhere claimed refund of Rs. 32,000/- and Rs. 20,800/-. As order of the State Commission is based on erroneous assumptions and facts, impugned order is liable to set aside and matter is to be remanded back to the State Commission. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 25.10.2012, passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No. 900/2012, Unit Trust of India & Ors. vs. Kamlesh Chhabra is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide it afresh on the basis of pleadings, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.02.2014.