1.      This revision petition under sections 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 06.08.2019 in Appeal No.  1119 of 2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, Bengaluru (Principal Bench) (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 20.06.2019 of the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shanthinagar, Bangalore (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 158 of 2017.

2.      The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner obtained a LIC Jeevan Tarang Policy on 01.03.2011 on half yearly premium basis from the respondent. As he had failed to pay the premium in March 2015, he approached the respondent who advised him vide letter dated 20.07.2015 to revive the policy during the Special Revival Campaign by undergoing medical checkup. Accordingly, the complainant underwent medical tests and submitted reports dated 14.09.2015 and 02.12. 2015. On 19.08.2016 the opposite party conveyed that the policy was declined without assigning any reason. Complainant issued a legal notice on 08.12.2016 to refund the premiums totaling Rs 1,36,400/- and bonus of Rs 56,400/- which was not replied to. He then filed a complaint before the District Forum which allowed the complaint partly and directed the opposite party to refund the premium of Rs 1,36,400/- with Rs 10,000/- towards litigation costs within 30 days. The appeal of the opposite party before the State Commission was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

3.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent submitted through letter that his written arguments be treated as his final arguments. I have given thoughtful consideration to the material on record.

4.      The petitioner argued that the State Commission erred in its finding that the premium paid could be refunded during the lifetime of the assured and/or before the end of the accumulated period as settled by this Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Kalluri Siddaiah II (2020) CPJ 277 (NC) which held that if the petitioner which incurs cost in ensuring the life of policy holders is made to refund the premium in the lifetime of the insured, “it will not be possible for the Corporation to remain financially viable and it will not be in a position to grant insurance cover to the policyholders”. While it is admitted that premiums of Rs 12,626/- were paid upto September 2014, there was a default as on 01.04.2015 and as per condition no. 2 of the policy, the policy was cancelled. According to the petitioner, the premium from March 2011 to September 2014 was Rs 1,01,008/-. Revival of the policy could not be done after the respondent failed to pay the instalment since the mandatory medical examination showed unsatisfactory results. During pendency of the complaint before the District Forum a further medical examination was recommended by the petitioner which was also not satisfactory. According to the petitioner, the fora below arrived at erroneous findings since the premium was not paid even during the grace period of 30 days and under the lapsed policy there existed no insurance contract. As the premium paid was Rs 1,01,008/- the order of the District Forum to refund Rs 1,36,400 was erroneous. It is also stated that under condition no. 3 of the policy relating to “Non -forfeiture Regulations” the paid up value of Rs 1,36,400/- inclusive vested bonus of Rs 56,400/- was due and payable at the end of the accumulated period on 01.03.2027. As per condition no. 4 of the policy the petitioner reserved the right to either accept or decline revival of the policy based on evidence of satisfactory health. It is argued that revival is not a matter of right and therefore the impugned order needs to be set aside.

5.      Per contra, the respondent in his written arguments has stated that he is not in a position to travel to New Delhi and argue the case. Hence he has sent to written arguments by post which is taken on record. Respondent has stated that the revision petition was not maintainable as it was a case of concurrent findings of facts by the fora below. Respondent has also stated that the respondent had sought revival of the policy within six months of lapse due to non-payment of one premium. The policy allows five years time to seek revival. The respondent further states that the respondent has not suppressed any information at the time of seeking revival. The revival was sought within six months from the date of non-payment of the premium. The respondent has issued notice on 08.12.2016 to the petitioner/ opposite party. The respondent took the policy on 10.04.2011 and the respondent paid the premium regularly. He submits that due to oversight the premium for March 2015 was not paid. On realizing the oversight, the respondent approached the petitioner for revival and underwent medical tests at R V Metro Diagnostics and Health Care Centre, Bangalore. Respondent states that by a letter dated 20.11.2015, the respondent was called up to seek revival under Special Revival Campaign.  The respondent was again asked to undergo medical check-up. The respondent underwent medical test at R V Metropolis Diagnostics and Health Care Centre, Malleswaram, Bangalore. The respondent again made enquiry about the policy, however, the respondent was asked to undergo medical testsagain. Accordingly, the respondent underwent medical tests at Raksha Diagnostics, Bangalore on 12.07.2016.

6.     The respondent submits that on 19.08.2016, the respondent received an undated letter stating that the policy has been declined.  The respondent submits that the petitioner produced medical test reports before the District Forum. As per this report, except the sugar level being high no adverse health levels/ reports are in the test reports. The respondent further states that the policy provides for revival of the lapsed policies. This has been admitted by the petitioner. He further states that the policy nowhere states that revival will amount to fresh contract.  Further, the respondent states that condition no.4 allows revival within five years period from the date of unpaid premium on submission of continued insurability to the satisfaction of the Corporation and payment of all arrears of premium together with interest. He also states that condition no.4 does not empower the petitioner to impose fresh terms and conditions. Respondent states that the petitioner has issued a letter dated 17.01.2017 for revival of the policy; however, in the said letter the scheme is valid only up to 15.03.2017 and it also provides medical concession. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Commission in LIC of India vs Dr Manjunath Reddy decided on 22.10.2019 as well as the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case Mahesh Kumar vs LIC of India.

7.      From the records it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal. The concurrent findings on facts of these two foras are based on evidence led by the parties and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse.       

8.      This Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

9.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Company (2011) 11 SCC 269 dated 18.03.2011 has held that:

“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 exercised 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 ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora.”

10.    Reiterating this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors  (2016) 8 SCC 286 dated 02.08.2016 held:

“17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

11.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2019 in the case of T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs. N Madhava Rao and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019 dated 05.04.2019 held as under:

“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

12.    The foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner which have been raised before me in this revision petition. It is also seen that the orders of these fora are based on evidence on record.  In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail.

13.   I therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference of this Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.