PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 against the Impugned Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, tate Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan in First Appeal No. 378/2011 whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal. The Appeal was filed by the Respondent against the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, istrict Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 5/06. The District Forum partly allowed the Complaint. 2. The Complainant, Sudama Chaturvedi, was a member of the Sahara Silver Year Benefit Scheme, by investing a sum of Rs.27,000/-, with the OPs. The Sahara Swaran and Rajat Yojna Scheme were launched by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited (the petitioners/OP), which provided various benefits to the subscribers. The company had taken a Group Insurance Policy for the benefit of its subscribers which could be availed by the subscribers at their discretion. The complainant suffered acute chest pain on 29.1.2005, took treatment at Siddhartha Hospital at Bhavani Mandi, and on 2.2.2005, at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, thereafter, on 26.2.2005, Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (CABG) was performed for him at Escorts Heart Institute at New Delhi. The complainant submitted a reimbursement claim for Rs.2,12,482/- towards critical illness cover from the OP, along with the bills of the expenses incurred. The OP denied the claim; hence the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. 3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that, the Complainant was not a consumer, as the service was provided free of cost to the Complainant and secondly, that the critical illness cover was provided only for a period of one year and there is nothing on record to show that the same was valid for a period of 10 years. 4. Aggrieved by order of District Forum, the complainant approached the State Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, which, on 04.11.2008, remanded back the matter to the District forum, Jhalawar with certain directions. 5. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.2,12,482/- , with Rs.500/- as litigation charges to the Complainant, within a period of one month. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of District Forum, the Petitioner preferred the first appeal No. 378 of 2011 before the State Commission, which was dismissed. Against the order of the State Commission, this Revision Petition has arisen. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner/OP vehemently argued that OPs have not committed any deficiency in the service by rejecting the claim of the complainant, as the same has rightly been rejected as per the rules. The claim was time barred. The State Commission placed reliance on a pamphlet (leaflet) which admittedly was not even issued by the Petitioner. The Counsel for the OP-3 submitted that he has not issued the insurance policy to the complainant; hence OP-3 is not liable for the insurance claim. 8. We have perused the terms and conditions of the scheme, accordingly, the treatment expenses from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- in case of critical illness was payable to the subscribers. As per the insurance company, the risk was covered for only one year, the petitioner/OPs did not renew it thereafter. Thus, there was no mistake on part of the complainant; it was the responsibility of the OP Company to renew the policy. The Counsel for the complainant brought our attention towards the advertisement published on 18.05.2010, in which it has been mentioned that, golden opportunity is being granted for getting better benefits with guarantee for the next 10 years upon investment of the deposited amount of the privileged subscribers in our housing scheme through Silver year Benefit Scheme with the purpose to give maximum benefits by the establishment in view of the interest at large of the privileged subscribers so that our privileged subscribers may obtain the following dividends for next 10 years for investment through booking under our popular Sahara Swaran/Sahara Rajat Scheme 9. The counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon two judgments of the Supreme Court which are as follows: a) Polymat India P. ltd. & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 174. b) Suraj Mal Ram niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2010) 10 SCC 567. We are not convinced with the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner. The facts in the cases referred supra are not similar to the facts of the case in hand. The Revision Petition is meritless, hence dismissed, with costs of Rs.10,000/- which is to be paid to the complainant, within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. Otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% pa, till its realization.