STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTAR PRADESH REVISION PETITION NO. SC/9/RP/76/2025 (Against the Order dated 23rd July 2025 in Appeal DC/AB1/162/CC/105/2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow-ii)

ADITYA BIRLA HEALTH INSO CO LTD. & OTHER PRESENT ADDRESS - 1ST FLOOR PLOT NO 7 PARK ROAD LUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus MEENA JAISWAL PRESENT ADDRESS - 368/BL/1/1 LAKADMANDI SAHADATGANJ LUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.

ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE Through its AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY PRESENT ADDRESS - IDNAIN RAYON COMPOUND , IDNAIN RAYON COMPOUND , VERAVAL , GIR SOMNATH,GUJARAT.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

ADITYA BIRLA HEALTH INSO CO LTD. & OTHER FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MEENA JAISWAL DATED: 29/09/2025

ORDER

Oral State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow.

RP no.76 of 2025 Aditya Birla Health Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Revisionist Versus Meena Jaiswal & anr. …Opp. Parties.

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava, President)

29.9.2025

1- By means of the instant revision, a challenge has been made to the order dated 23.7.2025 passed by the learned District Commission in complaint case no.105/2023 whereby the application seeking amendment in the complaint has been allowed by the learned District Commission.

2- We have heard submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Abhishek Bhatnagar.

3- Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and upon perusal of record, the instant revision is proposed to be decided finally, therefore, in view of the order proposed to be passed today, notice to the opposite party is hereby dispensed with.

4- It transpires from perusal of record that on 23.7.2025, the application seeking amendment in the complaint moved by the complainant has been allowed by the learned District Commission. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the order dated 23.7.2025 passed in complaint case no.105/2023 be set aside and opportunity of filing written statement may be granted to the revisionist.

5- Having heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and upon perusal of entire record including the memo of revision, we find that it is no more res integra that the revisional power is very limited which is to be exercised within the permissible scope as is enshrined in Section 47 (1) (b) of the Act of 2019, which is quoted herein below :-

Sec 47 (1) …………..……

Sec 47(1) (a) ………………..

Sec. 47 (1)(b)

“to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

6- Needless to mention that revisional power can be exercise only when the error pointed out is pertains to the jurisdiction of the learned court below. Any error not affecting the jurisdiction of Court below, does not entitle the superior Court to correct even error of law or fact. It was so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pandu Rang Dhoni Chougule Vs Maruti Hari Jadhav AIR 1966 SC 153

7- In this regard we may also usefully refer a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaik Jaffar Shaik Mahmood Vs. Mohd. Pasha Hakkani Saheb AIR 1975 SC 794. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is, thus, very limited.

8- Viewed in the light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaik Jaffar Shaik Mahmood Vs Mohd. Pasha Hakkani Saheb and upon perusal of impugned order, it is needless to mention that in case the learned District Commission below had jurisdiction to entertain such application, therefore, by entertaining such application and by passing order thereon, it cannot be inferred that there is any juris