This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 07.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ‘the State Commission’), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.05.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Giridih, (in short ‘the District Forum’) passed in CC No.47 of 2014 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant had taken a Life Insurance Policy from the opposite party, which was valid from 6.09.2011 to 6.9.2027. The insured died on 24.08.2012. The claim was filed by the complainant to the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company rejected the claim on the ground that the insured had given wrong information about his profession and his income in the proposal form. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint bearing No.47 of 2014 before the District Forum and the District Forum allowed the complaint as under on 03.05.2017:- “Hence this case is allowed. The O.P. No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) the sum insured with 9% interest P.A. to the complainant from the death of the complainant’s deceased husband Vinod Turi who was policy holder of O.P.No.1, Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment mentally and physically and Rs.5000/- for litigation cost. All amount mentioned here above is payable by O.P.No.1 to the complainant within sixty days of this order failing which the complainant will get liberty to take recourse of law. Let free copies of judgment be issued to both sides.” 3. The petitioner Insurance Company preferred appeal before the State Commission bearing No. FA 148 of 2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2017 of the State Commission. 4. Hence the present revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned counsel argued that in the proposal form Deceased Life Assured (DLA) had given information under the column ‘occupation’ as business and under the column ‘the nature of duties’ as supervision and selling of garments whereas, the investigation done by the Insurance Company revealed that he was a labourer and his annual income as assessed by the investigator was Rs.40,000/- whereas, in the proposal form it was mentioned as Rs.1,20,000/-. Learned counsel further argued that investigation report also finds that he was of BPL category having Antyodaya Ration Card. Thus, clearly correct information was not given in the proposal form. Had he given the correct information about his profession and income, the Insurance Company may not have entered into the contract of insurance. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. The State Commission has recorded in its order that in the evidence of the complainant, the complainant has stated that DLA used to go door to door for selling the clothes. The State Commission has also observed that the Insurance Company could not show any provision or rule that BPL category persons are debarred from taking insurance. During the arguments, this question was again asked to the learned counsel for the petitioner, but no such provision was shown even at this stage. The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that DLA wrongly stated the profession as well as his nature of duties. It is seen from the report of the investigator that investigator has clearly observed that DLA was non-smoker and non-alcoholic and DLA was perfectly fit and fine and he never suffered from any chronic ailment. This observation of the investigator establishes the fact that DLA was not such a person, who was not feeding himself well due to lack of income. Had his income been Rs.40,000/- per year, he would not have maintained his good health. Thus, no other document has been filed showing that his income was less than Rs.1,20,000/- and this income was considered as sufficient to issue the policy to the DLA. Hence, it becomes immaterial whether he was doing the labour of selling garments or he was doing some other occupation of labour. Moreover, the Insurance Company had not asked any proof for answers to these questions for satisfaction of the Company at the time of issuance of the policy. Hence, I do not find the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as sufficient ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed by both the fora below. Moreover, this Commission has limited scope in the matter of concurrent finding of fact by both the fora below as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286 held that: “23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them 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.” 7. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed at the admission stage. | 
