APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner NEMO For the Respondent Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd APRIL 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.02.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 1428/2007, he Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as IC versus Nagaraj T.V.vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 06.06.2007 in consumer complaint no. 22/2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya, allowing the said complaint, was set aside, and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant obtained Jeevan Dhara Policy, bearing no. 623015283 for a sum of `_1,20,000/- from the LIC, with date of maturity as 19.10.2006. The complainant contended that he was entitled to ` 4,800/- as monthly instalment of annuity from the date of maturity, whereas the OP was paying him a monthly instalment of ` 1200/- only. He also contended that in addition to the sum assured under the policy, he is entitled to receive 1% of the enhanced amount and also entitled for the bonus declared by the LIC / OP. Despite taking up the matter with the zonal office of the OP and the Insurance Ombudsman, he failed to get proper relief. The LIC took the stand that as per the circular/instructions issued by them, the complainant was entitled to receive 1% of the Gross Insurance Value Element (GIVE) and, therefore, the monthly instalment of Annuity was fixed at ` 1200/-. The OP contended that they had already paid ` 3600/- as one-time payment under the policy, in view of the instructions contained in the circular. They further contended that the LIC had not declared any Bonus under the Jeevan Dhara Policy and hence, the complainant was not entitled to any bonus under the said policy. The complainant, on the other hand, took the plea that GIVE amount was enhanced by ` 2,496/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy with deferred participation in profit. The petitioner was eligible for bonus at two stages the first stage at the end of the deferred period as addition to the GIVE amount and proportionately increasing the annuity, and the second stage as addition to GIVE amount, payable on death. The District Forum vide their order dated 06.06.2007, allowed the complaint and directed the LIC to add bonus as admissible to any other annuity policy for 15 years, to the GIVE amount and to enhance the annuity at 1% of the enhanced GIVE amount and also directed to pay ` 5000/- as litigation cost. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the LIC preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed as per the impugned order and the order of the District Forum was set aside and the consumer complaint was dismissed. The State Commission upheld the version of the LIC that no bonus had been declared under the Jeevan Dhara policy issued in favour of the complainant and hence, the OP was not bound to pay bonus to the complainant. It is against this order that the present petition has come up. 3. The petitioner put in personal appearance during some hearings before the Commission, bu