IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) National Commission - National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Commission is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record.
(2) National Commission - National Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the foras below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction.
(3) Power of Review - The power of National Commission to review under section 26 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 582 of 2018 dated 10.05.2017 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Ropar (in short, ‘District Forum’) dated 28.04.2015. The said order directs the petitioner to pay the respondent Rs 2,00,000/- each under two policies along with 9% interest on these sums till realization apart from Rs 3000/- as compensation and Rs 2000/- as cost of litigation on account of the death of the respondent’s husband who was a policy holder of the two life policies.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.03.2006, the petitioner’s husband Faqir Chand purchased a life insurance policy (No. 163096217) from the respondent for a sum of Rs 50,000/-. Subsequently, on 08.12.2010 and 29.10.2010 purchased two more policies under the respondent’s Jeevan Saral scheme (Nos. 164558088 and 164558264 respectively) for Rs 2,00,000/- each and paid the requisite premium regularly. On 21.05.2012 the respondent informed the petitioner that her husband had expired due to a heart attack and raised a claim for insurance cover. Policy number 163096217 was settled by the petitioner for Rs 50,000/-. However, the other two policies were not settled on the ground that there was a bar under section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 as two years had not elapsed and on grounds of misstatement by the insured regarding his pre-existing heart ailment. It is averred by the petitioner that the deceased Faqir Chand had been admitted in NFL Hospital, Nangal between 05.03.2012 to 10.03.2012 and thereafter at DMC Hospital, Ludhiana from 10.03.2012 to 15.03.2012 where he had undergone Coronary Artery By-pass Graft surgery in 2006, which fact was not disclosed while purchasing the two insurance policies. He was again admitted in this hospital on 30.03.2012 where he expired due to a heart attack.

3. The petitioner has submitted that as per his enquiry, the late policy holder had been admitted to BBC Heart Care, Pruthi Hospital, Jallandhar on 19.12.2002 where he was diagnosed with CAD Triple Vessel Disease and an off pump Coronary Artery By-pass x 3 was performed on him for which purpose he was admitted till 15.01.2003. The claim of the respondent was therefore repudiated by the petitioner vide letters dated 23.11.2012 on the ground of having withheld correct information at the time of obtaining the life policies.

4. The District Forum, Ropar allowed the complaint of the respondent on 28.04.2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 118 of 2014 and ordered as under:—

7. It is pertinent to mention here that in order to prove their stand that the DLA prior to the inception of the policy, was suffering from Corornary Artery Disease, Triple Vessel Disease and Off Pump Corornary Bypass x 3 was done on 04.01.2003, the OP have placed on record certain documents issued by BBC Heart Care/ Pruthi Hospital, Jallandhar City and even on 02.02.2015, the learned counsel for the OP nos.1 and 2 had filed miscellaneous application for summoning the record keeper along with the record of the above said hospital and the said application was allowed vide order dated 13.02.2015. Accordingly, on 07.04.2015, Shri Gian Chand, Medical Record Incharge of Paruthi Hospital, Jalandhar had appeared and suffered a statement to the effect that the summoned record relating to the documents exhibit OP 7 to OP 9 has been destroyed by the hospital after elapse of six years, but the said documents seem to be of the said hospital. In his cross examination, by the learned counsel for the complainant, he stated that he had not brought any record on that day and could not produce the original record, as the records of the above said cases, is not available, the same being more than six years old. In paragraph 8 of the written statement filed by the