IMPORTANT POINTS
Revisional Jurisdiction – Revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision.
State Commission – When State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Revisional Jurisdiction – In exercising of revisonal jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 21.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 21/2017 in which order dated 26.10.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 128/2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the State Commission in FA/21/2017 and the judgment dated 26.10.2016 passed by the District Forum in CC 128/2015.

2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA/21/2017 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No. 128/2015.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent/Caveator on 26.04.2019. Parties filed Written Arguments on 24.01.2023 (Petitioners) and 16.01.2023 (Respondent) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

The Complainant’s husband Sri S.K. Vadhwa had taken two Postal Life Insurance policies from the OP-1/Petitioner herein on 13.05.2009 and 29.05.2009 for insured value of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The monthly premium in both the policies was as Rs.1175/-. The policies were to be matured on 13.05.2017 and 29.05.2017 respectively. Besides the above two policies, the complainant’s husband had also taken the insurance policy from Life Insurance Corporation wherein the death claim had already been settled and paid by the Insurance Company. On 03.11.2009, the complainant’s husband died at Kendriya Hospital, Northern Railway, New Delhi. When the complainant came back to Moradabad then she came to know about the policies taken by her husband and therefore she applied for payment of death claim vide letter dated 05.03.2010 through OP-1 to OP-2, enclosing therewith the policy book of policies in question, receipts of premium, copy of death certificate. The complainant also sent an affidavit to OP-2 stating the loss of original policy bonds, with an undertaking that she would produce the same in future if the bonds are found and she would not misuse the bonds. Vide letter dated 26.06.2010, the OP-2 asked OP-1 to send the claim forms pertaining to the policies in question, the report of enquiry officer and confidential report wherein the statement of neighbors of complainant were recorded. Thereafter, the complainant kept on contacting OP-1 regarding the payment of death claim of the policies amounting to Rs.2,00,000. OP-1 wrote a letter to the Railway Department, where the deceased husband was working, for requiring the certificate of medical leave taken by the deceased Sri S.K. Vadhwa and the copy of said letter was also sent to the complainant. Vide letter dated 23.09.2011, the Department (Railway) of complainant’s husband provided the information regarding leave taken by the deceased/insured on medical ground to the OP-1 and copy of thereof was also endorsed to the complainant. Vide letter dated 24.11.2011, OP-2 sought medical prescriptions of complainant’s husband from the period from 16.06.2009 to 03.07.2009. In response to the said letter, the complainant apprised that her husband was not under medical treatment during the said period and he was under treatment only prior to his death. In spite of completion of all required formalities by the complainant, the OP-2 repudiated the death claim of policies vide letter dated 11.08.2014 on the ground of suppression of material fact of his ailment. Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

5