PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.11.2012 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1769 of 2011 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sulekh Kumar by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint partly was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased policy for Rs.90,000/- from OP No. 1/Petitioner No. 1 on 25.2.2006 and paid first premium of Rs.30,000/-. Even after completion of 3 years period from the date of issue of policy, OP offered Rs.53,754/- to the complainant instead of Rs.90,000/- and thus illegally retained Rs.36,246/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that complainant had surrendered the policy and sent request form dated 23.3.2010. As per Clause 5 (i) of the policy, 60% of the value of units subject to the payment of premium was paid for the three full policy years and Rs.53,735.54 being 60% of value of units was transferred to the bank account of the complainant. As per terms of policy, complainant was not entitled for any further payment and OP has not committed any deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.36,246/- along with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner filed surrender request along with application before the State Commission, but Learned State Commission without considering that application has dismissed appeal so; revision petition may be allowed and matter may be remanded back to the State Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that learned District Forum allowed complaint, as petitioner could not produce on record copy of surrender request dated 23.3.2010. Petitioner placed that document on record along with application before learned State Commission and learned State Commission has not considered that application at all and has dismissed the appeal on the basis of observations of the learned District Forum. It was obligatory on the part of State Commission to consider application filed by the petitioner and either to allow application or reject the application and only after that, final order in appeal should have been passed. As surrender request was the basis of payment of 60% of the value; hence, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned State Commission to consider application for taking surrender request on record and decide appeal afresh. 6. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 16.11.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1769 of 2011 ICICI Prudential Life Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sulekh Kumar is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide application filed by the petitioner for taking on record surrender request and decide appeal afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission, Haryana on 16.12.2013.