1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, Hamirpur (for short, the District Forum) and the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (for short, the State Commission), the Petitioner/Insurance Company-SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. filed the Revision Petition No. 548 of 2020 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Ms.Sumna Devi (for short, Respondent No.1) & Ors. (for short, Respondent Nos.2 and 3). The Complaint being Consumer Complaint No. 44 of 2015 before the District Forum was allowed. The relevant portion of the Order dated 08.12.2017 is reproduced as under:-

“10. It was duty of Opposite Parties no. 2 and 3 to make proper inquiry before issuing the policy. Rajinder Kumar was paying the installments of loan regularly and had paid premium and there is nothing on record to hold that Rajinder Kumar had concealed his illness and had died due to heart attack. Declaration Forms are filled by insurance company in the casual manner and it has not been proved on record that terms and conditions of the policy have been duly explained to deceased Rajinder Kumar. The cause of death in the present case is not a heart attack. Rajinder Kumar had taken the policy for covering the risk of his house loan but it appears that opposite Parties no.2 and 3 repudiated the claim of the complainants on wrong and flimsy grounds. No doctor or any expert has been examined for proving that deceased was suffering from heart ailment.

11. In view of evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to hold that opposite parties have committed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, due to which complainants have suffered monetary loss, mental tension and harassment.

12. In view of findings recorded above, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties no 2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs. 8 lac the benefits of insurance policy to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11.02.2015 within 30 days, from the receipt of copy of this order. However, opposite party No.1 will have the right to recover the loan amount from the amount granted to complainants. The Opposite Parties no 2 and 3 also directed to pay punitive compensation of Rupees 5,000/- and cost of complaint which we assess at Rupees 5,000/-. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its due completion be consigned to Records.”

2. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Order dated 08.12.2017 was dismissed by the State Commission vide Order dated 26.02.2020 with observations as under:

“20.    Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned DCF/DCC is in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts and does not warrant any interference by State Commission is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in order of learned DCF/DCC and it is held that order of learned DCF/DCC is strictly in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

21. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by appellants is dismissed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned DCF/DCC alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.”

3. As the State Commission and District Forum have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same.
4. I have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Deceased Life Assured (for short, DLA), Mr. Rajinder Kumar, had obtained a home loan from the State Bank of India, Nadaun Branch for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and enrolled for insurance coverage under the Rinn Raksha Group Insurance Scheme bearing Master Policy No. 70000000310, effective from 07.02.2013. The policy holder died on 27.09.2013.  Learned Counsel of the Petitioner further argued that the Respondent No.1’s husband/ Deceased Life Assured was suffering from Coronary Artery Disease, Hypertension, Single Vessel Disease, which he had not disclosed in the Proposal Form. The DLA, Mr.Rajinder Kumar underwent Coronary Angiography on 14.07.2008 in Fortis Hospital, Mohali. The Petitioner vide letter dated 02.01.2014 repudiated the claim of Respondents. The Outstanding loan amount, as on the date of death of Mr. Rajinder Kumar was Rs.7,87,904/-.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 argued that there is concurrent finding of the State Commission and District Forum. Therefore, this Commission has limited revisional jurisdiction.  Ld. Counsel further argued that the insurance company failed to fulfil its obligation by not conducting a premedical examination before issuing the insurance policy, despite the fact that the insured was over 45 years of age. Mr. Rajinder Kumar died a natural death on 27.09.2013. The investigator failed to obtain the doctor’s statement. The doctor’s affidavit was not recorded. He further argued that the Medical Report that was gathered by the Investigator during the investigation is not to be relied upon as its accuracy is questionable. Ld. Counsel further contended that the interest on loan amount should be waived of.
7. It is noticed that the Petitioner has reiterated contentions already presented before the District Forum and the State Commission, without introducing any new question of law justifying interference with these Orders.  These Commissions have adjudicated on the merits of the case. They have already dealt with the issue of non-disclosure of ailment.  They have held that details of the Policy have not been disclosed.  Except discharge summary, no other corroborative evidence was filed by the Insurance Company.  Though the discharge summary does mention certain ailments, in the peculiarity of this case, such evidence procured by the Investigator does not inspire confidence to conclude that the deceased is guilty of non-disclosure. 
8. It is a well-established principle that this Commission has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission except for any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard:

1. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

2. Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“23. The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it”

3. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, wherein it was held as under:

“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 exercise 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 court 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.” 

4. Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. ( 2016 8 SCC 286) decided on 02.08.2016, wherein it was held as under:

“23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has 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 reason” 

5. Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 decided on 21.01.2022 , wherein it was held as under: 

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-Bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Revision Petition is dismissed. The Order of the State Commission is partly upheld by directing the Petitioner/ Insurance Company to make payment of the insured amount to the Respondent No.3/ Bank, which had provided the loan to the Deceased Life Assured, and such amount shall be considered as final payment of loan amount and the Bank shall issue the No Dues Certificate to Respondent No.1, thereafter, without charging any further payment from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.