This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sahara India Pariwar & anr. against the order dated 09.04.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.890 of 2016. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is wife of the deceased who invested Rs.10,000/- to purchase bond on 13.08.1998 from opposite party for a maturity period of 120 months (10 years). Complainant’s husband died his natural death on 31.05.2007 and so she applied for death help by submitting relevant documents to opposite party. Inspite of submitting all the documents opposite party did not sanction death help loan amount. Legal notice was also issued to opposite party. Complainant filed complaint and prayed to direct opposite party to pay Rs.12,00,000/- maturity amount with 18% interest + Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The District Forum vide its order dated 11.08.2016 allowed the complaint as under:- “The complainant has been able to prove her complaint in toto and complaint of the complainant is allowed and accepted and opposite parties are directed jointly and severally:- (i) To pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- in 120 equated instalments of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of this order after having personal guaranteed/surety from complainant for repay and of loan.The repayment of loan will start after one months of receiving last and final instalment i.e. 120th instalment of Death Help Loan.The Death Help Loan will be free of interest and if the complainant makes default in repayment of three instalments in continuously, the she will be liable for payment of interest prevailing at that particular juncture and time as per guidelines of the RBI OR opposite parties are at liberty to pay Rs.12,00,000/- in lum sum within 30 days from the date the receipt of the copy of order and complainant will be liable to repay in instalment of Rs.10,000/- per month without interest after 12 months of disbursement of Death Help Loan. (ii) To pay compensation for harassment, financial loss, mental agony, loss of precious time to the tune of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant. (iii) To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,500/-. All the above directions are to be complied within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will be further burdened to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakh) as this compensation will be in addition to the above mentioned awarded amount.” 3. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party/petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the following order on 09.04.2018:- “8. As a sequel to above discussion, impugned order dated 11.08.2016 is modified to this extent that if the same is not complied within the period mentioned therein then OPs will be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the benefits granted by learned District Forum in clause A from the date of filing of complaint. Complainant will be entitled for the remaining relief as directed by learned District Forum. The appeal is disposed of with this modification.” 4. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the District Forum and the State Commission have not considered the two main objections of the opposite party that the age of the bond holder/deceased/ insured was not correctly recorded and it cannot be said with certainty that he was below 60 years of age. The second objection of the opposite party was that the bond holder suffered from pre-existing disease of COPD about which he had not supplied any information at the time of purchasing the policy bond and therefore, the claim amount was not payable to the complainant. It was stated by the learned counsel that different documents reveal different age of the deceased/ insured. The voter ID shows that at the time of purchasing the bond the age given in the election card was 45 years, therefore, at time of death, which occurred in 2007, the policy holder was about 53-54 years old. Similarly in the ration card his age is mentioned more or less the same. However, in the discharge summary his age is mentioned 60 years. It means that he may be more than 60 years also and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get claim benefit as the claim is only payable if the insured dies between 16 years and 60 years. 6. With respect to the disease of COPD, which is pulmonary disease, the learned counsel stated that the discharge summary clearly states that the insured died of COPD though no time is mentioned since when the insured was suffering from this disease. However, this disease takes 10-20 years to develop and therefore, it must be existing prior to 1998 when the bond was issued to the life assured. Learned counsel argued that no information was given by the bond holder at the time of purchasing of the bond in respect of the COPD from which the complainant was suffering. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. First of all, it is seen that even on the basis of two documents i.e. the election ID card and ration card, the age of the insured was 53-54 years at the time when he died. Thus, there can be no basis for accepting the age of the deceased life assured (DLA) to be 60 years on the basis of the discharge summary of the hospital. Therefore, this ground taken by the petitioner/opposite party is totally frivolous. Coming to the pre-existing disease COPD, it is seen that the discharge summary only mentions that the insured was suffering from COPD and died due to COPD. It does not give any period for which the deceased insured was suffering from COPD. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that it takes 20 years to develop the disease of COPD, the fact remains that even if it is developing inside the body, the person may not know that this is COPD until he suffers from disease and it is diagnosed to be COPD. As no proof has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party in respect of the allegation that the insured was suffering from COPD prior to 1998, the allegation cannot be accepted only on the basis of the discharge summary, which does not give any time period for the suffering of insured from COPD. Both the fora below have giving concurrent finding of fact that the deceased insured was not ineligible due to age and was not suffering from any pre-existing disease. Against this concurrent finding of fact, this Commission cannot reassess the fact. Hence, the scope of the revision petition is quite limited as held 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, which reads as under:- “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. On the basis of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 09.04.2018 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the revision petition No.2210 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage. | 
