1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short, the State Commission), the Petitioner/ Opposite Party – The Branch Manager, TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd./Insurance Company filed this Revision Petition No. 1468 of 2018 under Section  21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Suvankar Sen (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/ Complainant). The Complaint filed by the Complainant being Consumer Complaint No. 127/2013 before the District Forum was partly allowed.  The relevant portion of the Order dated 29.09.2014 is reproduced as under:-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

“In the aforesaid circumstances we find that they OPs are duty bound to pay the Death Claim amount as they did not perform their duty in time regarding verification of documents and they also reluctant to examine their own agent who did all. Accordingly, we find that the Complainant is entitled to get the sum assured amount of the policy in question from the Ops. The Complainant was compelled to file this case due to adamant attitude of the O.Ps. So, this case should be allowed with costs. In the circumstances, the above point is answered in favour of the Complainant. In the result complaint succeeds. Hence, it is.”

2. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Order of the District Forum was dismissed by the  State Commission vide Order dated 12.03.2018 with observations as under:

“It appears on a reference to the subject proposal form that the same was not filled up by the respondent’s mother. In this regard, it is claimed by the Respondent that one Sri Asim Paul, authorized agent of the Appellants filled up the proposal form and such fact has not been specifically disputed by the Appellants.

The Appellants have squarely blamed the deceased policyholder for withholding material fact about her pre-exiting disease. The Appellants wondered that, although the Respondent’s mother was undergoing treatment at the hospital while filling up the form, she maintained studded silence about her ailments.

We do appreciate such view of the Appellants. However, by such parity of reasoning, the concerned agent of the Appellants was as much responsible for non-reflection of the same in the proposal form, particularly when the proposal form was filled up by him. That apart, since the deceased policyholder was reasonably unwell, it is naïve to believe that she was not in a position to go through intricate details of the proposal form on her own. Therefore, in all likelihood, she put her signature on the dotted lines as per the advice of the concerned agent. In view of this, we think that the Appellants cannot avoid vicarious liability for the intentional laches on the part of their authorised agent.

Besides this, in terms of Sec. 19 of the Indian Contract Act, a contract does not become void merely because consent to contract was obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence. In this case, the authorized agent of the Appellants was fully aware of the actual state of affairs. Despite this, if he did not act bona fide, the Appellants must seek due explanation from him. It is no excuse that he is no longer associated with the Appellant Company. Since the Appellants are well aware of the whereabouts of concerned ex-agent, they are at liberty to show-cause the latter. Under any circumstances, that cannot be a cogent ground to repudiate an otherwise eligible claim.

 In view of above, to our mind, the instant claim was rightly allowed by the Ld. District Forum. Therefore, the same does not call for any interference from our end.

 The Appeal, accordingly, fails.”

3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same. 
4. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel of the Petitioner argued that Mrs.Arati Dey Sen/ Deceased Life Assured (for short, DLA) submitted the duly filled and signed Proposal Form on 29.08.2011 for the issuance of a life insurance policy. She obtained a Policy from the Insurance Company on 13.09.2012 for  15 years and the total Sum Assured was Rs.1,50,000/-. The DLA died on 17.05.2013 due to Hyperglycemia. During investigation, it was found that the DLA was hospitalized from 09.09.2011 to 14.09.2011, which was not informed to the Insurance Company.  This is a case of non-disclosure.  She took consultation in Apollo Hospital, Kolkata on 19.08.2011 for nose bleed and was advised to consult ENT specialist.  She was suffering from thyroid problem.
6. Learned Counsel of the Respondent argued that there is a concurrent finding of the District Forum and State Commission, and this Commission has limited Revisional Jurisdiction under the Act. The Petitioner has wrongfully repudiated his claim vide repudiation letter dated 06.08.2013. The Proposal Form was submitted on 29.08.2011 prior to the date of hospitalization i.e. 09.09.2011 to 14.09.2011. The Petitioner issued an insurance policy dated 13.09.2011 for a sum insured of Rs.1,50,000/- on the payment of the premium. Unfortunately, the DLA expired on 17.05.2013. The Proposal Form was filled up by the agent of the Petitioner and not by the DLA and the Petitioner has not specifically denied the same in its Written Statement.  Hospitalization took place only after filing of the Proposal Form.  Also, the diseases mentioned in the repudiation letter are not covered under the Proposal Form.
7. The issue to be decided is whether this is a case of pre-existing disease and of non-disclosure of the same.  The case of the Insurance Company is that the deceased was suffering from Hypothyroidism, Left Ear Tinnitus, Hearing Difficulty, Recurrent Episodes of Epistaxis and Left Nasal Cavity Mass, prior to the Application for the Insurance Policy.  As part of the evidence, the Insurance Company has filed prescription of a doctor of hospital dated 19.08.2011, which is ten days prior to the Application, in which the Assured had complained of Recurrent Epistaxis.  Under prior medical history, a question mark has been put against HTN (probably Hypertension and Hypothyroidism).  From such consultation, the pre-history is not very clear except for the fact that the deceased suffered from nose bleed.  Thereafter, she was hospitalized after the filing of the Proposal Form for her problem of nose bleed.  The only clarity from the hospital record that emerges is the fact that the patient was having history of thyroid problem.  The patient was admitted in the hospital from 09.09.2011 to 14.09.2011.  The question before me is whether non-disclosure of hypothyroidism would constitute a fundamental breach of the Insurance Company when it is undeniable fact that the Proposal Form was not filled by her.  In my considered opinion non-disclosure of such metabolic disorder cannot be considered as a fundamental breach considering the peculiarity of this case.  Moreover, I would not like to go further into the matter considering that this is case of concurrent finding and the jurisdiction of this Commission is very limited.
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:

“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 and the Order of the District Forum partly upheld modifying it to the extent that the interest rate of 9% per annum on the assured amount shall be payable from one month after the Repudiation Letter (dated 06.08.2013) till realization within eight weeks of this Order, failing which the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum for the same period.