Jurisdiction in revision petitions is limited to examining jurisdictional errors without reassessing evidence or substituting concurrent findings.

1. This revision petition under S.21(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 188 of 2016 dated 5.5.2016 arising out of order dated 29.1.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, 'District Forum') in Complaint No. 365 of 2015.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that late Bachan Singh, father of the respondent, had taken a life insurance policy from the petitioner based on a proposal form dated 19.8.2013 for a sum of Rs 2,50,000. The date of birth entered in the proposal form was 1.1.1957 which made him 56 years old at the time of the commencement of the policy. The policy was issued and half yearly premium of Rs 12,500 duly paid. The said Bachan Singh died during the pendency of the policy on 29.10.2013. A claim for insurance was filed by the son (present respondent) of the late policy holder. The same was investigated as per Rules and on 1.8.2014 it was rejected by the petitioner on the ground that the Deceased Life Insured (DLA) had misrepresented his date of birth at the time of the policy. The proof of age submitted had been the Voter ID Card and as per the status downloaded from the official website of the Chief Electoral Officer, Punjab during investigation, the age of the DLA for the relevant ID card holder was stated as 88 years. The claim was, therefore, rejected on the ground that the policy was obtained on the basis of a fabricated voter ID card which rendered the contract of insurance void.

3. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, the respondent approached the District Forum seeking payment of the sum assured (Rs 2,50,000), Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 11,000 as litigation expenses. The District Forum, after due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and argue their case, allowed the complaint on 29.1.2016 and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs 2,50,000 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of repudiation (1.8.2014) till realization apart from Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses within 30 days. In addition, punitive damages of Rs 20,000 was imposed on the Head (Claims) of the petitioner Insurance Company for capricious and arbitrary exercise of power to be deposited with the Legal Aid Fund of the District Forum.

4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission challenging this order. However, FA 188 of 2016 was dismissed in limine on 5.5.2016 holding as below:
7. It is the admitted case of the parties that at the time Bachan Singh, insured, submitted the Proposal Form Ex.OP1 to 3/2, he submitted his identity card issued by the Election Commission of India Ex.OP1 to 3/3, in which his age, as on 1.1.2006, was recorded as 49 years. The proposal form was filled up by him on 19.8.2013 and, as such, as per this identity card, his age was 56 years at that time. The opposite parties in order to prove the averments made by them in the written reply that he was 87 years of age at the time he First Appeal No. 188 of 2016 6 filled up the proposal form, proved on record the voters list of 2014 Ex.OP1 to 3/6, in which the age of the insured was recorded as 88 years. This Voters List was ignored by the District Forum by making observations in para No. 6 of the impugned order that the opposite parties have not summoned any witness of the issuing authority of the Voters List for proving the same and, as such, no reliance can be placed upon that evidence. The Voters List Ex.OP1 to 3/6, so