ORDER

1.       The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that she has filed this Revision Petition against the Order of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 08.08.2024, which dismissed his Appeal against the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srikakulam. She submitted that she filed the applications being I.A. No. 13/2024 in the Complaint case being CC No. 90/2023, I.A. No. 14/2024 in the Complaint case being CC No. 91/2023 and I.A. No. 15/2024 in the Complaint case being CC No. 92/2023 before the District Commission, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to examine Dr. Rakesh of Great Eastern Medical School & Hospital at EMS Medical College, Srikakulam, Ragolu under Section 38(9)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.       The District Commission dismissed the application after giving a detailed Order. In the Complaint, the Petitioner / Opposite Party has stated that it has repudiated the claim(s) on the ground of the report of the investigation and medical documents and that the deceased life assured was suffering from pre-existing diseases, not disclosed before taking the policies. The appointment of a Commissioner to examine a Doctor is not required in a summary trial and it is only meant for delaying the disposal of the Complaint. The State Commission has also gone through the grounds of Appeal filed by the Petitioner and again has given a detailed Order as to why the Appeal is not maintainable.

3.       From the record, it is seen that the matter is still pending for final hearing before the District Commission. After hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record and the Orders of the two Commissions, it is seen that no new fact or question of law has been put forth by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and that the grounds mentioned in these Revision Petitions have already been decided on merits by both the two Commissions. It is to be kept in mind that this Commission in a Revision Petition has a very limited jurisdiction unless there is a major question of law involved.

4.       In this connection, we would like to rely upon the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

“In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

“The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it”

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercise only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was