1.      This Revision Petition No. 627 of 2020 challenges the impugned order of AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada (‘the State Commission’) dated 19.02.2020. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed FA No. 64 of 2017 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vishakhapatnam (‘the District Forum’) dated 13.08.2016.

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that her husband had obtained Housing Loan from Andhra Bank-Respondent No.2/OP-2, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam vide Loan Account No. 142630100004748 on 24.08.2011. At the instance of OP2, the life assured had obtained an Insurance Policy from the Petitioner/OP-1 covering the risk of the housing loan amount. The OP-2 paid the premium to the OP1 on behalf of the life assured.  The life assured died on 04.07.2014 without any health problem. The Complainant, who is the wife of the life assured, submitted an application to Petitioner/ OP-2 for settlement of the insurance claim, who in turn repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground of concealment of pre-existing disease. Being aggrieved, she filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

3.      In reply, OP-1 admitted insurance policy with terms and condition as stipulated and agreed between the parties. It contended that the claim of the Complainant was repudiated rightly as the life assured suppressed the pre-existing disease in the proposal form and obtained the policy. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 in reply, inter alia, contended that no relief is sought against them and, therefore, the complaint be dismissed wrt Andhra Bank.

4.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 25.07.2019, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/OP-1 as under:

“11. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part directing the 1st OP only to pay Rs.9,75,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) towards loan due instalments complainant's to the deceased 2nd OP Husband directly Loan to the Account No.142630100004748. The 1st OP is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant. After receiving the said amount from the 1st OP, the 2nd OP has to issue acknowledgement to that effect to the complainant. Time for compliance, one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

5.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/OP-1 filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 19.02.2020 dismissed the same and observed as follows:

“14. The question that falls for consideration is whether the 1st opposite party is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the existence of Ex A-4 certificate of insurance as on the date of death of the life assured. The Is opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the life assured was suffering with heart ailment in the year 2008 and that material fact was not disclosed in the proposal form. It is needless to say that the burden lies on the 1st opposite party to establish that the life assured suppressed the pre-existing disease and induced the 1st opposite party to issue Insurance Policy. The 1st opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant (Ex.B-8) with the following observations:-

‘…

          Further, it is found that the Life Assured was suffering from Heart Disease and was under treatment for the same, prior to his proposal for insurance and that all the above mentioned replies were false.

          In view of the above, it is clear that the Life Assured has given false and misleading information to the Company. Had the Life Assured replied to the above mentioned questions truthfully and correctly in the proposal form, the Company would not have issued the above Policy at all and/or on existing terms. It is evident that the Company has been led to issue the Policy by suppressing material facts regarding his past medical history.

          In the said circumstances, the Company is therefore repudiating the clam for nondisclosure of material information at the time of making the proposal and no benefits are payable as per Policy Terms and Condition.

….’

A perusal of the same clearly reveals that Ex.B-8, repudiation letter is conspicuously silent with regard to the name of the hospital, in which the life assured alleged to have been taken treatment. Similarly, there is no mention in Ex.B-8 on which date, month and year, the life assured had taken treatment for any ailment. To substantiate the stand, the 1 opposite party mainly placed reliance on Exs.B-5, B-6 and B-7. As per the Investigation Report, Ex.B-7, the life assured had taken the treatment as out-patient in Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam on 18.11.2008 and 14.06.2009. In order to appreciate the above observation of the Investigator, it is not out of place to extract the relevant portion of the report:-

‘….

Remarks:

          We spoke to the concerned person in the said chemists and the doctors available in the vicinity. The concerned person's failed to recognise the insured and the family members.

…..

Medical Findings:

          We have seen this case retrospectively, In the complete checks done it was found that insured was not good from health, he was suffering from chest pain since 2008, he consulted care hospital, Visakhapatnam as a outpatient on 18.11.2008 and 14.06.2008.

          ……’

  A perusal of the remarks clearly evinces that no one in the hospital identified the family members of the life assured. Ex.B-5 is the discharge summary alleged to have been issued by the Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam. As per Ex.B-5, the life assured alleged to have been admitted in the hospital on 22.11.2018 and discharged on 24.11.2018. As per the Investigation Report, the life assured did not take treatment as an in-patient in Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.B-5 was prepared on the letter head of the Care Hospital, Visakhapatnam, which does not bear the signature of the doctor or the concerned officials of the hospital. Ex.B-6 is the health card issued under the Aarogya Sree scheme. In Ex.B-6, it is not mentioned that the life assured had taken treatment for heart problem in the year 2008. Interestingly, Ex.B-6 does not bear the signature of the issuing authority. The opposite parties did not disclose as to from whom Exs.B-5 and B-6 were secured. It is not mentioned in Ex.B-8, repudiation letter that the Investigator secured Exs.B-5 and B-6 from the concerned authority. Exs.B-5 and B-6 are not the authenticated documents. Viewed from any angle, no credence or credibility can be attached to Exs.B-5 and B-6. There is no material much less cogent and convincing material to establish the stand taken by the 1st opposite party. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the 1st opposite party failed to establish that the life assured suppressed the pre-existing disease and obtained the policy. The 1s opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant without any foundation or basis. The act done by the 1 opposite party amounts to 'deficiency' in service as contemplated under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum appreciated the recitals of documents filed by both the parties, in the light of the pleadings. The findings recorded by the District Forum are supported by the documentary evidence. We are fully endorsing with the findings recorded by the District Forum. Viewed from any angle, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the complainant and against the 1 opposite party.

15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.”

6.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Complainant was suppressed the pre-existing disease in the proposal form and obtained the policy and, therefore, the repudiation of claim was justified as per terms of the insurance policy. He sought the impugned orders of the lower fora be set aside.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. V. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod Civil Appeal No.4261 of 2019, decided on 24,04.2019, MANU/SC/0593/2019;

(b) Swatwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/1164/2009;

(c)  P.C. Chacko and Anr. Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., MANU/SC/8115/2007;

(d) Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., MANU/SC/0814/2010;

(e) Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mdhvacharya, R.P. No.211 of 2009, decided on 02.02.2010 by NCDRC;

(f) Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Ors., MANU/SC/0707/1999;

7.      No one appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1/Complainant on 26.07.2022, 09.12.2022 and 05.07.2023 despite service, he was placed ex-parte.  Respondent No.2/OP2 is a proforma party and he has no liability in the case.

8.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the Petitioner.

9.      The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. This was primarily because the grounds relied upon in the repudiation letter are not supported by leading any cogent and convincing evidence with regard to the life assured suppressed the pre-existing diseases and obtained the policy. This order is now under challenge at the revision stage.

10.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

11.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“9. It is needless to say 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. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12.    Similarly, in a recent order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction 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 its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

13.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed and the order of the learned District Forum dated 31.08.2016 is modified to the extent that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded is set aside in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable.

14.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.