Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Rakesh Gupta, the respondent herein, purchased 3 ING Vysya Life Insurance Policies in the name of his three daughters, namely, Ms.Shalu Gupta, Ms.Ritu Gupta and Ms.Payal Gupta.  Sum assured therein was Rs.3,90,000/-, Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.3,67,000/- respectively.  Annual premium payable was Rs.15,000/- towards each policy.  According to the respondent, the representative of the petitioner insurance company, at the time of negotiations, had unrevealed that the policies will be helpful to incur expenses in the marriage of his daughters which will mature in 20 years.  Relying upon this assurance, respondent obtained the policy.  It was alleged in the complaint that on the basis of the premium receipts, he came to know that the maturity period was not 20 years but at the age of 70 years of each girl and, therefore, policies were not which were represented to him.  Respondent sought clarification from the petitioner to which the representative of the petitioner clarified that this was the style of writing on the premium receipts.  That he had to pay premium only for 20 years and the policies will mature.  That 70 years mentioned in the policies was the period of risk coverage.  Sensing some foul play, respondent asked the petitioner to cancel the policies and refund the amount, to which the petitioner did not agree.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum. 

On being noticed, the petitioner appeared and filed its written statement.  Petitioner did not appear on any other date and was proceeded ex parte.  Taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.45,000/- with interest at the rate of 18%.  Petitioner was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed.  The State Commission, in its order, noted that the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and the District Forum was justified in allowing the complaint taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct. 

Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

This Commission issued a limited Notice regarding deletion of the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum on account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment.  Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent to meet the litigation and other allied expenses which was de hors the result of the Revision Petition.  Respondent was served and he has sent his reply.  Rs.5,000/- were also received by him. 

As the respondent was not present on the previous date of hearing, we directed the office to send a fresh Notice with a note that in case the respondent does not appear today, he shall be proceeded ex parte and the Revision Petition disposed of in his absence.

We have gone through the reply sent by the respondent.  In our considered view, the fora below have erred in directing the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for a refund of Rs.45,000/-.  This is on the higher side.

Accordingly, we reduce the amount of compensation to Rs.20,000/-.  Orders of the fora below are modified to the extent indicated above.  Petitioner is directed to pay the awarded amount to the respondent after deducting the amount already paid to the respondent, if any, within 30 days.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.