1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 16.12.2019 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.311 of 2017.

2.       Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA No. 1661/2021, an application for condonation of delay 10 days has also been filed by the Petitioner. However, as per computation done by the Registry, there is a delay of 51 days. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, IA/1661/2021 is allowed and delay condoned.

3.       The case of the Complainant is that the father of the Complainant/Respondent Shri Ramprit Paswan purchased “Super Cash Gain” Insurance Policy No.0283489040 valid from 13.10.2012 to 12.10.2028 for a sum insured of Rs.4,00,000/- from the Opposite Party/Petitioner - Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company. The annual premium of the Policy was Rs.46176/- and the Respondent/Complainant was made nominee in the Policy. The father of the Complainant i.e., insured died on 22.01.2015 due to cardiac arrest. Thereafter the Complainant filed Insurance claim with the Petitioner/Opposite Party but the same was repudiated on 31.03.2015 on the ground that the Insurance Policy lapsed due to non-payment of premium. It was alleged by the Complainant that the Insured paid three instalments and went multiple times to deposit the fourth instalment. According to the Respondent/Complainant on 14.01.2015, when his father went to deposit the premium, he was informed by the Insurance Company, vide Query Report No.44434392 that the Policy was valid and no premium amount was due.  But at the time of claim of insurance, it was said that the Policy lapsed on 31.03.2015. Aggrieved by repudiation of Insurance claim, the Respondent/Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.29 of 2016 with the District Forum with following prayer: -

 “That the complainant presents the following claims as the claim amount, whose payment the opponent in favour of complainant: -

a.     Death claim amount       Rs.4,00,000/-.

b.     Mental, physical and financial damage under Rs.2,00,000/- the Item.

c.      As suit expenses Rs.30,000/­,

d.     Advocate notice and claim letter preparation and expenses incurred for visiting the Opponent frequently Rs.20,000/-.

Gracefully provide the payment on the above claim amount with compounded annual interest of 24% from the death dated 22.01.2015 to the date of payment. For which the complainant is entitled, apart from that, order to be passed, whatever appropriate relief and compensation and claim amount which Your Honour deems appropriate, to be paid in favour of complainant.”

6.       The Complaint was heard ex parte since the Opposite Party failed to appear before the District Forum despite service of several notices. The District Forum after hearing the Complainant and perusing the record observed that the Opposite Party failed to adhere to the agreement made with the Insured. District Forum also observed that the Insurance premium amount was received as per scale and the Complainant was deprived of payment of Insurance claim with the wrong intention of non-payment of insurance amount. The District Forum allowed the Complaint as follows: -

“We find insurance Company Guilty. And we find insurance company's service faulty and wrongful. The opponent no. 1 and 2 are being notified that they should pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakh Rupees Only) as insurance amount along with interest of 10% from date of death till date of payment, Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand Rupees Only) as mental harassment compensation, Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand Rupees Only) as financial compensation, Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand Rupees Only) as case charges and Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand Rupees Only) as miscellaneous charges to the Complainant within 45 days. Otherwise after 45 days, the annual interest of 12 percent will be payable over-all above-mentioned amounts from the date of judgement to date of payment.”

7.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party filed First Appeal No.311 of 2017 before the State Commission. After hearing the Learned Counsels for the Parties and perusing the record, the State Commission observed that the policy was issued to the life assured after accepting the proposal as well as the first Regular premium with tax amounting to Rs.47602.84. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal with the observation that Repudiation of the claim of the Complainant was totally wrong and unjustified and the Complainant was entitled for the death claim benefits and other benefits as mentioned in the Policy.

8.       Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Opposite Party preferred this Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer-

“a).   to pass an appropriate Order, direction for summoning the Records of Appeal No. 311 of 2017 titled as Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited Versus Ugan Paswan decided by the Hon'ble State Commission, Patna;

b).     to pass an appropriate order and/or direction(s) thereby setting aside the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission, Patna in Appeal No. 311 of 2017 and also order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Learned District Forum, Samastipur, Bihar in Complaint Case No. 29 of 2016.

c).      to pass any further or other order(s) or directions in favour of the Revisionist as this Hon'ble Commission may deem just fir and proper in view of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.”

9.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully gone through the record. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the first and second premia were duly paid by the Deceased Life Assured, but the third Annual Premium which was due on 13.10.2014 was not paid. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Life Assured deposited the cheque but it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, the Life Assured never approached the Petitioner for payment of the Annual Premium even during the grace period. The Policy, therefore, got lapsed and the Life Assured did not get it revived. He also submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate Clause-5 of the terms and conditions of the Policy under heading "Non-payment of Regular Premium and Forfeiture" which clearly stipulates that “If at least three years’ regular premium have not been paid in full, then on non-payment of a Regular Premium before the expiry of the Grace Period, the Policy (along with any Additional Rider Benefit) will immediately and automatically lapse at the expiry of the Grace Period and no benefits under the Policy will be payable thereafter”.

10.     It was submitted that the State Commission had wrongly interpreted the provisions of Auto Cover Period ignoring the fact that in order to take benefit of Auto Cover Period under sub-clause 2 of Clause 5 of the Insurance Policy first three premia were compulsorily required to be paid in full and after that if subsequent Regular Premia were not paid, the Policy would have remained in Auto Cover Period for two years from due date of first unpaid Regular Premium and then only the benefits of the Policy would be available. Since the Policy had already lapsed, as on the date of death of insured, the Respondent/Complainant was not entitled to receive any amount and the Petitioner was justified in repudiating the claim.

12.     The entire controversy revolves around interpretation of Clause 5 of the Insurance Policy. The Policy issued to the insured commenced from 13.10.2012 and the next premium was due on 12.10.2013. The insured died on 22.01.2015 i.e. well within two years from the first unpaid regular annual premium. Under sub-clause 2 of Clause 5 of the Policy, if the death of the life assured occurs during the Auto Cover Period, the Death Benefit shall be the Sum Assured plus the Vested Bonus plus the Terminal Bonus. Moreover, the Petitioner also failed to satisfy this Commission that any notice was served upon the Insured regarding default in the payment of the premium. On the contrary, Complainant had stated that, vide Query Report No.44434392, the Insurance Company informed that the Policy was valid and no dues were outstanding, which the Petitioner had not rebutted either before the Fora below or before this Commission.

13.     I do not find any material irregularity in the judgement passed by the State Commission. Also, Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below have wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under: -

“13.        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.”

14.     Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 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.”

15.     In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both Fora below. Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of Revision Jurisdiction of this Commission. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.