IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Revision – It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on National Commission.
(2) Concurrent Findings–There are concurrent findings with well-reasoned orders. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited.

ORDER

These two Revision Petitions No.488 and 489 of 2018 have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’) by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned orders dated 03.01.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (‘State Commission’) in FA Nos. 775 and 781 of 2017 respectively. Vide Order dated 03.01.2018, the State Commission dismissed the said Appeals of the Petitioner/ Complainant and affirmed the Orders dated 22.08.2017 and 23.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint Nos.346/2016 & 444/2016 respectively whereby both the complaints filed by the Petitioner/Complainant were dismissed.

2. Since the facts and questions of law involved in both the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates and events, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, R.P. No.488 of 2018 shall be considered as the lead case, and the facts presented below are drawn from Consumer Complaint No. 346/2016.

3. For convenience, the parties are being referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that an agent/broker of the Opposite Party (OP) contacted him on mobile/phone, informing him that their company was offering loans. The Complainant, needing money for his son’s education, was already in touch with a nearby bank. Trusting the agent/broker, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,29,900/- on 08.01.2015 and Rs. 1,30,000/- on 04.03.2015, totalling Rs. 2,59,900/- by cheques from his State Bank of India, Bhilai savings account. An employee of the OP collected the cheques, obtained the Complainant’s signature on a form, and gathered documents from him. When he inquired about the loan, the OP informed him that the company was not providing loans. Despite contacting the call centre, he received no satisfactory response. After a considerable delay, he received a bond paper from the OP, which he kept. Later, he received a call from the OP’s office asking him to deposit the premium amount. It was then that he realized his deposited amount was placed under a Recurring Deposit (RD) scheme, requiring yearly deposits. He contended that the OP and its agent misled him, securing the deposits to earn more commission without disclosing that the deposits were for RD schemes. The OP issued policies No. 01238972 & 01246171 in Complainant’s favor for 10 and 12 years, respectively, without his consent. Due to his limited income, large family, and illness, the complainant could not afford the yearly premium payments. He had borrowed money to make the initial deposits. Upon requesting refund from OP, he was informed that premiums must be paid until the end of the policy terms to receive a refund and failure to pay the yearly premiums will result in deductions, as per the policy terms and conditions. The OP committed cheating and deficiency in service, particularly since Rs.1,30,000/- meant for his son’s fees was deducted again in March 2016 without his consent. He sent a legal notice dated 17.02.2016 to the OP. However, OP neither responded nor paid the claim amount. Aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.Top of Form.

5. In its written statement, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (“the Company” or “OP”) asserts several points in defense against the allegations made by the Complainant regarding mis-selling and deficiency of service in relation to two life insurance policies. Here is a detailed summary of the Company’s defense:—

a. The complainant received the policy documents. He failed to review them and instead kept them in a safe place. He is highly educated individual and a Manager at Bhilai Steel Plant, indicating he has the capability to understand the documents. By signing the proposal forms and paying the first premium, he asserted a