M/s. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. has filed the revision petition against the order dated 08.08.2013 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in FA No.1786 of 2011.  This is in a dispute relating to two polices taken by the Respondent/Complainant from the Petitioner/Company.  The District Forum had dismissed the complaint holding that the issues involved could not be decided in a summary proceeding. It also left the Complainant with liberty to file a complaint in a Competent Court of law.  However, on appeal, the State Commission reversed the order and allowed the complaint.

         On behalf of the revision Petitioner, Mr. Avanish Kumar, Advocate has been heard in extenso.  The main ground urged by the petitioner is of limitation.  According to him, the complaint was barred by limitation and should have been rejected on that ground alone.  Learned counsel however agrees that as per record the two polices in question were issued by the Revision Petitioner on 17^th and 18^th March of 2009.  He also agrees that the case of the Complainant throughout was that he had sought cancellation of the two polices on 20.3.2009.  But, neither the Revision Petitioner nor the counsel for the Petitioner have traveled beyond bland denials before the State Commission that the Respondent/Complainant had infact sought cancellation on 20.3.2009.  Learned counsel is also not able to point to any evidence, which was led before the fora below and which points to a different date in this behalf.  Thus filing of the complaint on 24.3.2011 in a matter where the relief sought by the Complainant on 20.3.2009 was not given, would hardly make it out to be a case for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation.  I therefore, find no fault with the impugned order on this count. Any other view would amount to denial of a substantive remedy on the ground of delay of merely three days.

         During the course of arguments, learned counsel drew my attention to the correspondence of 15.9.2012 in one policy and 27.9.2012 in the other.  These are two letters from the Petitioner/Insurance Company to the Complainant with which the surrender value of the two polices was paid to him during the course of pendency of the appeal before the State Commission.  It is found that in each case Rs.10073.52 has been deducted towards surrender penalty and a refund of Rs.3.24 lakhs has been made. But, in neither case interest for the delayed payment is given.  Moreover, learned counsel has not been able to produce any discharge certificate from the Respondent/Complainant to show that the amount so paid under the two polices were accepted by the Complainant in full and final settlement. In any case, the fact of payment does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the State Commission.

          In view of the details above, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which could justify intervention of this Commission in exercise of revisional powers under Section 21 (b) with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Consequently, the Revision petitions are held to be devoid of merit and are dismissed as such.