This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Union of India & ors. against the order dated 30.04.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.989 of 2018.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that wife of respondent/complainant took life insurance Policy from the petitioners/opposite parties on 16.02.2011 for Rs.10 lakhs which was to mature on 01.03.2043.  During the period of insurance, she got anaemia and because of which she died on 17.11.2012.  Complainant applied for claim after completing all the formalities but opposite parties refused to make payment on the ground that insured gave wrong information about her health.  Complainant contacted opposite parties to reconsider the same but no change was made by the opposite party. The complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing no.317 of 2016 before the District Forum Consumer protection, II, Jaipur, (in short the ‘District Forum’).  The District Forum vide its order dated 29.05.2016 passed the following order:-

“Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the opp. Party is directed to pay the amount of the questioned Daak Jeevan Beema Policy the insured amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lac only) and interest accrued thereon @9% from 16.06.2016 till the realization of the payment to the complainant.

Beside this the opp. Party is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousand only) for the mental agony and compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousand only) for the court expenses within a period of two months.

        In case of non compliance of the order after two months interest @ 12% will be entitled for the entire amount and the opp. Party will be responsible to pay the same.”

3.      Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite parties/petitioners herein filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 30.04.2019.

4.      Hence, the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage.  Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) did not give the correct status of her health in the proposal form.  She has clearly stated that she has a good health and that she was not suffering from any disease.  The learned counsel drew my attention to the prescription/ doctor’s slip dated 17.11.2012 and on the basis of this learned counsel stated that the DLA was suffering from aplastic anaemia.  In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the treatment papers dated 17.11.2012.  Learned counsel stated that when she was taking this treatment on 17.11.2012 she must be suffering from this disease when she filled the proposal form, however, no information has been given in the proposal form about her disease.  This is a clear case of suppression of material information and therefore, the petitioners rightly repudiated the claim.  Both the fora below have not appreciated the gravity of the disease from which the DLA was suffering and have allowed the insurance claim. 

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the District Forum, Jaipur did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the policy in question was taken by the deceased from Post Office Sirohi which has an independent and separate District Forum.  It has been argued that this is a legal question and can be taken at any stage.  It is true that the issue was not raised before the District Forum or before the State Commission.  However, it is being raised at the stage of revision petition.  Thus, the order passed by the District Forum and consequent order passed by the State Commission are without jurisdiction and therefore, are required to be set aside.

7.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage.  First of all, it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding of facts that the opposite parties were not able to prove that the DLA was suffering from any pre-existing disease. Both the fora below have taken a view that anaemia is very common in rural women after the pregnancy.   The paper/doctor’s slip has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners dated 17.11.2012 and even if one goes by this document, the disease may be there since February or March 2012 whereas, the proposal form was filled on 16.02.2011.  Thus, clearly the document relied upon by the learned counsel is of a later date than the date of the proposal form and moreover this document does not prove in any way that the patient was suffering from the disease before February 2012, therefore, it cannot be said that the DLA was suffering with this disease at the time of filing of the proposal form. The scope of the revision petition is quite limited and the facts cannot be reassessed in the revision petition if there is a concurrent finding of the fora below on facts.  In this regard, the reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

“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 that 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 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 finding of two fora.”

8.      It is seen that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was not raised either in the written statement filed by the opposite parties or in the memo of appeal filed by the opposite parties.  Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction is to be taken at the first opportunity when the party is contesting the case.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal and Anr., AIR 2005 SC 4446, as follows:-

“So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage”.

9.      From the above, it would be clear that if the issue of territorial jurisdiction has not been taken in the written stamen or in the memo of appeal, the same cannot be raised at the stage of revision petition.

10.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 30.04.2019 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the revision petition No.1749 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.