Petitioner/complainant had purchased policy bearing No.182307986 from respondent No.1/opposite party No.1-LIC whereof yearly premium was Rs.8916/- which was payable on 27th January each year. Petitioner alleged that a demand notice in his name was received from L.I.C. giving the number of the policy as 182307990. His brother-in-law-O. P. Sawhney bonafidely deposited the amount of Rs.9723/- towards premium sometime in February, 2002. Another notice demanding premium in respect of said policy No. 182307986 was received from the L.I.C. Then on inquiry, it was revealed that policy No. 182307990 whereof premium was deposited was in favour of one R. Dhir. Complaint attributing deficiency in service was filed against L.I.C.-respondent No. 1 and R. Dhir, respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 for refund of the said amount of Rs.9723/- with interest of Rs.535/- which on contest was dismissed by the District Forum holding the L.I.C. to be not deficient in service and giving liberty to the petitioner to recover the amount from R. Dhir. However, forum awarded Rs.500/- as cost in favour of L.I.C. In appeal by the petitioner this cost was waived by the State Commission. As may be seen from the orders passed by fora below, the petitioner had not filed the demand notice which he alleged was in his name and sent on his address. Petitioner has been paid the amount of Rs.9723/- by R Dhir. Having heard Shri Sawhney, Advocate, particularly, considering the non-filing of the notice in question by the petitioner, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the District Forum and modified by the State Commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.