Consumer protection laws must cater to the specific vulnerabilities of illiterate consumers, especially in cases of misrepresentation in insurance agreements.

1. This Revision Petition has been filed under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Amarjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant") against the Order dated 22.1.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1362 of 2013, wherein the Appeal filed by the Appellant (Respondent herein) was allowed and the Order dated 30.8.2013 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short 'District Forum') in CC No. 128/2013 was set aside.

2. The issue pertains to an alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, wherein an employee of the OPs approached the complainant to purchase an insurance policy. He allured informed the complainant that she could withdraw the amount after 3 years or receive double the amount after 10 years. Relying on this assurance, the complainant paid a one - time premium of Rs.4,60,000 through a cheque. The OPs issued a policy under the 'Kotak Secure Retirement Plan'. However, when the complainant tried to withdraw the deposited amount after 3 years, OP - 1 refused to pay her. The complainant was illiterate, and her husband a small agriculturist. The OPs concealed the information, obtained her thumb impression on papers, and issued her a wrong policy.

3. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before District Forum, Mohali and prayed for refund of Rs.4,60,000 with compensation of Rs.50,000 for mental agony and Rs.8,000 as costs of litigation.

4. The OPs in their reply raised preliminary objections that the complaint was barred by limitation under S.24 A of the Act. The cause of action had arisen to the complainant on 23.3.2009 whereas the complaint was filed on 25.3.2013. Also the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non - joinder of necessary party i.e., Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

5. The OPs further submitted that the Complainant signed the proposal form after understanding its contents and was explained the details by Jaswinder Singh and Ms. Garima Gupta. There was a 15 - day free look period during which the complainant could have returned the policy if unsatisfied. The complainant was informed about renewal premium but did not make the payment. The OPs sent a letter dated 22.2.2010 and 23.3.2010 informing her of the revival period, but she did not respond. The policy was eventually terminated on 23.3.2012, and a cheque of Rs.32,079.10 was sent to the Complainant according to the policy's terms and conditions. Thus, denying all the allegations of the complaint the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

6. The District Forum allowed the Consumer Complaint and directed the OPs to refund Rs.4,26,421 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of legal notice (1.3.2013) till realisation along with lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000 for mental agony and harassment and litigation costs.

7. Being aggrieved by to the Order of the District Forum, the OPs filed the First Appeal before State Commission, Punjab. The Appeal was allowed and the Order of District Forum set aside with the following observation:
"9. It is further argued by the Counsel for OPs that the District Forum allowed a sum of Rs.4,60,000 relied upon Clause 7 of Gazette Notification dated 1.7.2010 issued by IRDA In which maximum discontinued charges have been referred and that the said notification is not applicable to the facts of the case. As