1.     This revision petition under section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 188 of 2016 dated 05.05.2016 arising out of order dated 29.01.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 365 of 2015.

2.     The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that late Bachan Singh, father of the respondent, had taken a life insurance policy from the petitioner based on a proposal form dated 19.08.2013 for a sum of Rs 2,50,000/-. The date of birth entered in the proposal form was 01.01.1957 which made him 56 years old at the time of the commencement of the policy. The policy was issued and half yearly premium of Rs 12,500/- duly paid. The said Bachan Singh died during the pendency of the policy on 29.10.2013. A claim for insurance was filed by the son (present respondent) of the late policy holder. The same was investigated as per Rules and on 01.08.2014 it was rejected by the petitioner on the ground that the Deceased Life Insured (DLA) had misrepresented his date of birth at the time of the policy. The proof of age submitted had been the Voter ID Card and as per the status downloaded from the official website of the Chief Electoral Officer, Punjab during investigation, the age of the DLA for the relevant ID card holder was stated as 88 years. The claim was, therefore, rejected on the ground that the policy was obtained on the basis of a fabricated voter ID card which rendered the contract of insurance void.

 3.     Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, the respondent approached the District Forum seeking payment of the sum assured (Rs 2,50,000/-), Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs 11,000/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum, after due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and argue their case, allowed the complaint on 29.01.2016 and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs 2,50,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of repudiation (01.08.2014) till realization apart from Rs 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 5,000/- as litigation expenses within 30 days. In addition, punitive damages of Rs 20,000/- was imposed on the Head (Claims) of the petitioner insurance company for capricious and arbitrary exercise of power to be deposited with the Legal Aid Fund of the District Forum.    

4.      The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission challenging this order. However, FA 188 of 2016 was dismissed in limine on 05.05.2016 holding as below:

7.       It is the admitted case of the parties that at the time Bachan Singh, insured, submitted the Proposal Form Ex.OP1 to 3/2, he submitted his identity card issued by the Election Commission of India Ex.OP1 to 3/3, in which his age, as on 1.1.2006, was recorded as 49 years. The proposal form was filled up by him on 19.8.2013 and, as such, as per this identity card, his age was 56 years at that time. The opposite parties in order to prove the averments made by them in the written reply that he was 87 years of age at the time he First Appeal No.188 of 2016 6 filled up the proposal form, proved on record the voters list of 2014 Ex.OP1 to 3/6, in which the age of the insured was recorded as 88 years. This Voters List was ignored by the District Forum by making observations in para no.6 of the impugned order that the opposite parties have not summoned any witness of the issuing authority of the Voters List for proving the same and, as such, no reliance can be placed upon that evidence. The Voters List Ex.OP1 to 3/6, so proved on the record, was only a copy of the voters list and it was not the certified copy obtained from the concerned Department. The certified copy of the voters list is per se admissible in evidence. However, in order to prove the age of the particular voter, recorded in that list, it was necessary to examine the witness, who disclosed the age of the voter to the concerned authority. No presumption of truth is attached to the entries made in the Voters List. The opposite parties did not examine any witness, who might have come forward with the statement that the said age of Bachan Singh, insured, was disclosed by him to the concerned Department. The Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India is to be preferred to that Voters List. Merely on the basis of that uncertified copy of the Voters List, it cannot concluded that in the year 2014 Bachan Singh, insured, was 88 years old. The complainant pleaded in para no.4 of the complaint that Bachan Singh had died on 29.10.2013 and that fact was admitted by the opposite parties in their written reply. In these circumstances there was no question of the name of Bachan Singh figuring in the Voters List; which was prepared in the year 2014. The District Forum did not commit any illegality while ignoring First Appeal No.188 of 2016 7 that Voters List. No other evidence was produced by the opposite parties for proving that the insured had not given correct date of birth/correct age in the proposal form. Thus, we do not find that there is any ground for admitting this appeal to be heard on merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

8.       The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.

5.      The present revision petition impugns this order on the ground that the DLA intentionally and fraudulently suppressed his date of birth with a malafide intention. It is also contended that the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal in limine is a violation of natural justice. It is contended that the order of the District Forum is based on the fact that no affidavit of the investigator was brought on record. It is also contended that the nominee of the DLA did not produce the original Election Card. Several cases have been cited in support of the grounds that reasons for repudiation can be contested only in civil courts and not before Consumer Fora and that the contract of insurance is based on uberrima fides and that the contract has to be interpreted as per terms and conditions of the document.    

6.      The respondent has relied upon the concurrent findings of the lower fora on the facts of the case. It has been contended that the proposal form dated 19.08.2013 was based upon the date of birth of the DLA in the Voter ID card and was correctly recorded as 56 years. The reliance of the petitioner on the data sheet of 2014 from the website of the State Election Commission is stated to be erroneous and is not supported by any affidavit of any witness. It is contended that the District Forum rightly ignored the Voters List which was also not a certified copy and therefore inadmissible as evidence. Therefore, no presumption of truth can be attached to entries in the Voters List. It is contended that as the DLA had expired in 2013, entries in the Voters List of 2914 relating to him are not valid.

7.      I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record.

8.      Learned counsel for the petitioner argued as per the revision petition. Reliance was placed on this Commission’s order in SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rattan Lal (RP 634 of 2015) which held that a false declaration of age based on a Voter Identity Card constituted concealment of a material fact through a false declaration. The facts of this case are, however, distinguishable from the present matter where the date of birth in the Voter ID card is at variance with that in the datasheet on the website and the two relate to different years.

9.     From the material on record, it is evident that the lower fora have concluded concurrently on facts. Even though the State Commission has dismissed the appeal in limine its order has discussed the facts in a detailed order. This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, has held that:

“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 exercised 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 Courts 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.”

11.   Reiterating this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors  (2016) 8 Supreme Court Case 286 held:

“17. 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.”

12.   Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs and Ors vs N Madhava Rao and Ors, dated 05.04.2019 held as under:

“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

13.   From the records it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal. The concurrent findings on facts of these two foras are based on evidences led by the parties and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse.        The foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner.  In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail.

14.   I therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.