IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Concurrent findings – In the present case there are concurrent findings of facts and thus revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited.
(2) Revisional jurisdiction – 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.
(3) National Commission – The powers of the National Commission are very limited.

ORDER

This Revision Petition No. 2194 of 2019 challenges the impugned order of the learned West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘the State Commission’) dated 03.07.2019. Vide this order, the State Commission allowed the Appeal No. A/549/2018 and modified the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-II (Central) (‘the District Forum’) dated 26.04.2018 to the extent only liability of paying fine as ordered by the Ld. District Forum and instead saddle them with the liability of paying simple interest @9% p.a.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that her husband had an insurance policy under IDBI Federal Loan Insurance Group Life Plan to cover the housebuilding loan of Rs. 16 lakhs taken from IDBI Bank Ltd vide Policy No. 400465557 with sum assured of Rs.16 lakhs. It commenced on 30.09.2012 and was in force for three years till September, 2015. She approached OP Insurance Company for renewal of the policy on 31.12.2016 along with cheque No. 249/27 dated 31.12.2016 for Rs.22,457/- drawn on Parnasree Branch of SBI. It was credited to OP account on 03.01.2017. As per OPs policy, a lapsed insurance policy can be reinstated within 2 years from the date of last unpaid premium. She complied with the other mandate for such renewal. She had also filled the proposal form with details as to health condition of the life assured that her husband was recently suffering from Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma a disease which affected him in the right eye from April, 2015 and was spreading rapidly and subsequently affected the brain. As a result, her husband was not in a position to recapitulate the date when the premium was due. As such, he became defaulter and the policy lapsed. Subsequently, her husband died on 06.01.2017. She preferred the death claim. On 25.03.2017 she received a letter from OP-1 Insurance Company that her claim was rejected on the ground that the policy was in lapse condition. She protested the repudiation and approached Insurance Ombudsman on 09.04.2017. The Insurance Ombudsman conducted a hearing on 23.06.2017. However, she was not allowed to represent her case through any Advocate and no legal aid was granted. An order was passed without allowing her prayer and directed the OPs to refund Rs.22,457/- along with interest @ 2% per annum. Being aggrieved, she filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

3. In reply, the OP Insurance Company contended that the impugned policy lapsed on 30.10.2015 for non-payment of premium. The revival request of the husband of the Complainant was rejected due to malignancy which had spread in the body of the life assured. On proper verification it was confirmed that nothing was due and payable by the OP as the policy was not revived after its lapse on 30.10.2015. The said proposal was actually filed with OP insurance company on 02.01.2017 as 31.12.2016 was Saturday and only an office boy was present in the OP office, and he was forced to accept the said reinstatement form. The revival form was actually received by OP on 02.01.2017 and in that reinstatement form it was noted that the life assured was suffering from malignancy and said malignancy had spread to multiple organs. The OP insurance company after considering revival form and the medical papers refused to reinstate the policy and the said fact was intimated to the policy holder by its letter dated 20.01.2017. The life assured expired few days after the date of receipt of the proposal for revival of the policy on 02.01.2017 which makes it absolutely clear that the intention of the life assured was not fair. The complaint filed by the Complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer dispute under the Act as there is neither any unfair trade practice nor any deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the Complaint be dismissed.

4. The learned District Forum vide order dated 26.04.2018, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners/OPs as under: