For the Appellant                Mr Praveen Mahajan, Advocate (VC)

                                       Mr Kunal Nema and Vrinda, Advocates    

For the Respondent             Mr Ashkrit Tiwari, Advocate (VC)

ORDER

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.      This revision petition assails the order dated 28.09.2017 in First Appeal No. 1040 of 2017 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the ‘State Commission’)  against order dated 20.07.2017 of the District Forum, Fatehabad (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 299 of 2016.

2.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the material on record. 

3.     The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant had approved four insurance policies on 19.01.2012 in the name of Smt. Chidiya, the late wife of the respondent based on proposals dated 14.01.2012 as per details below:

The Life Assured (LA) expired on 07.03.2012. The appellant undertook an investigation as required under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 in view of the death of the LA having occurred within 2 years of the issuance of the Policies. It was reported by its agency, ‘Sakshi Investigation and Detective Agency’ that the deceased LA (DLA) had obtained a life insurance policy from Kotak Life Insurance for a sum of Rs 7,76,000/- from 18.01.2012 and that she had furnished false information at the time of the proposal that she was a housewife with no source of income although she had stated that she was running a milk business for 5 years earning Rs 2,50,000/- per annum. The claim of insurance was repudiated by the appellant on the grounds of mis-statements regarding the DLA’s occupation and income. The repudiation was challenged before the District Forum which, vide order dated 20.07.2017 in Complaint No. 299/2016, directed payment of the sum assured with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the complaint (25.11.2016) under all 4 policies within 45 days till realization. First Appeal No. FA 1040/2017 against this order before the State Commission was dismissed in limine. This order is impugned before us praying to set aside the order of the District Forum.   

4.      Appellant has contended that the District Forum erred in considering only one ground of repudiation pertaining to the DLA being a housewife with no source of income and did not consider the other grounds of suppression of a prior insurance policy. It was contended that the District Forum had also erred in holding that no affidavits had been produced to establish whether at the time of the policy proposal details regarding the previous policy had been sought or explained to the DLA. As regards the certificate of the Sarpanch that the DLA was only a housewife with no employment, it was argued that the District Forum had not considered the same on the ground that it was a xeroxed copy that had not been proven. It was contended that the State Commission also failed to appreciate the averments of the petitioner including that the respondent did not fall under the category of a ‘consumer’ since the policy envisaged payment of bonus and participation in variable bonuses which implied that the policy was a speculative investment which is excluded under the Consumer Protection Act. Reliance was placed, inter alia, on this Commission’s judgments in Neetaben Mukund Shah & Anr. Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., CC No. 148/2008 dated 20.05.2015 which held that insurance for amounts disproportionate to income may lead to unjust enrichment and ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lalita Jain, 2015 (2) CPR (NC) 199 and Monica Jain Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, FA 260/2008 which held that suppression of material information gave insurer the right to repudiate a claim.

5.      Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission were detailed and reasoned and that the repudiation of the respondent’s claim based on the report of the investigation agency surveyor appointed by the appellant had been rightly adjudicated in favour of the respondents. The DLA was not suffering from any disease at the time of obtaining the insurance policies and had expired due to a sudden heart attack. The petitioner had failed to prove that the DLA did not have an income of Rs 2,50,000/- per annum. The proposal for the policies in question had been submitted on 14.01. 2012 whereas the policy relating to Mahindra Kotak was issued on 18.01. 2012, i.e. after 4 days. There was therefore no mis-declaration or incorrect statement in the proposal form with regard to any life insurance policy that had been sanctioned prior to the approval of the 4 policies in question. It was contended that the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act had been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd and others, (2022) 9 SCC 31 to be limited and in Rubi Chandra Datta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 that revisional powers of the National Commission can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. Reliance was also placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and others vs H & R Johnson India Ltd and others (2016) 8 SCC 286 and this Commission’s judgement in JS Sidhu vs Ashok Bhandari and others MANU/CF/0128/2023 regarding concurrent findings on facts by the fora below to be not disturbed under revisional jurisdiction.        

6.      From the records it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal. The findings on facts of the District Forum is based on evidences led by the parties and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse.       

7.      This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta (2011) 11 SCC 269 dated 18.03.2011 has held that:

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora.”

9.      Reiterating this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors  (2016) 8 SCC 286 dated 02.08.2016 held:

“17. 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.”

10.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2019 in the case of T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs. N Madhava Rao and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019 dated 05.04.2019 held as under:

“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

11.    In the instant case both the District Forum and the State Commission have considered the contentions of the appellant and held in favour of the respondent. From the record it is evident that the pronounced order which is detailed and has dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner which have been raised before us in this revision petition. It is also seen that the order is based on evidence on record. All contentions of the appellant were duly considered by the District Forum. In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail.

12.   We, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference of this Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.