This revision petition has been filed by M. L. Ahuja against the order dated 9.5.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) passed in F.A. No. 125/2017 wherein the appeal against the order dated 8.3.2017 of the District Forum passed in CC No.374 of 2015 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for decision of this revision petition are that the complainant/petitioner got insurance cover under Policy No.350029 from SBI Life. It has been alleged in the complaint that respondent no.3, Rahul Ahuja who was the agent of SBI Life Insurance introduced the complainant to other insurance companies and the complainant took insurance from other insurance company, the respondents no.1 and 2 for Rs.51,000/- and Rs.91,000/- on 25.8.2011 and 21.11.2011 respectively. It has been alleged that respondent no.3 further introduced him to yet another insurance company wherein he invested Rs.2 lakhs on 30.11.2011. It has been alleged in the complaint that he has been misled to invest in these companies by respondent no.3 and the complaint was filed for refund of these amounts as he did not want to carry on with those investments. The SBI Life insurance has denied that respondent no.3 is their employee. They have further stated that they have never sent any agent to the complainant. 3. The complaint was resisted by the OPs by stating that there was free look up time of 15 days when the policy could have been returned by the complainant. However, the complainant did not return the policy within that period, hence, the amount cannot be refunded. The District Forum vide its order dated 8.3.2017 dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred Appeal No. 125 of 2017 before the State Commission and the State Commission has also dismissed the same and confirmed the order of the District Forum. 4. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the District Forum has wrongly observed that the policy in question is not in the name of the complainant and the insurance beneficiary are not impleaded as party. The contention of the learned counsel is that the policies are in the name of the complainant. It was further alleged by the learned counsel that the State Commission has confirmed the order of the District Forum in a mechanical manner and has not applied its mind. The policies were fraudulently issued to the complainant and therefore, he is entitled to get the refund under the policies. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. It is seen that the SBI Life Insurance Policy is in the name of Veena Ahuja and is not in the name of petitioner/complainant. Hence, the observation of the District Forum seems to be correct so far as the original policy given by SBI Life Insurance is concerned. So far as the question of refund of other two policies given by M/s. DLF (Now DHLF) Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd is concerned, no reason has been given by the complainant for asking for refund of these amounts. It has also been alleged that fraud has been played upon him and therefore, he is entitled for refund. Even during the hearing, it was specifically asked to the learned counsel as to what was the exact cause that he is alleging deficiency and wants refund. No specific answer was given by the learned counsel. Moreover, nowhere it has been explained as to what is the deficiency in service of the insurance company and why does the complainant want refund. It has only been alleged that respondent no.3 introduced the complainant to these companies. He had taken the insurance policies and now he wants refund. It is clear from the terms and conditions of the policies that 15 days free look period was provided and the complainant has not returned the policy within that period and therefore, the contract has become final and without any deficiency on the part of the insurance company, the complainant cannot seek refund of the paid amount. Even during hearing of this revision petition, the same was not explained. It is not at the whims of the insured that whenever he wants, he can obtain refund of the paid amount. Obviously if he wants to surrender the policy at any stage, the policy can be surrendered as per the terms and conditions of the policy and surrendered value can be paid to the complainant, if other conditions are met. 7. Both the fora below have examined the complaint and have given the concurrent finding that the complainant does not have any case on merits. In cases where the concurrent findings have been given on facts of the case, the scope under the revision petition is very limited. 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, the following has been observed: “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.” 8. From the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that facts cannot be re-assessed at the stage of revision petition. There is concurrent finding of facts by the fora below. As examined earlier, it has been already found that the complainant has not given any cogent reason to seek refund of the amounts paid for the policies in question under the terms and conditions of the policies, hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the fora below giving concurrent decision on the complaint. 9. Based on the above discussion, the Revision Petition No.2724 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage. | 
