1.      These two Revision Petitions No.488 and 489 of 2018 have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’) by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned orders dated 03.01.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (‘State Commission’) in FA Nos. 775 and 781 of 2017 respectively. Vide Order dated 03.01.2018, the State Commission dismissed the said Appeals of the Petitioner/ Complainant and affirmed the Orders dated 22.08.2017 and 23.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint Nos.346/2016 & 444/2016 respectively whereby both the complaints filed by the Petitioner/Complainant were dismissed.

2.      Since the facts and questions of law involved in both the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates and events, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, R.P. No.488 of 2018 shall be considered as the lead case, and the facts presented below are drawn from Consumer Complaint No. 346/2016.

3.      For convenience, the parties are being referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      Brief facts, as per the Complainant, are that an agent/broker of the Opposite Party (OP) contacted him on mobile/phone, informing him that their company was offering loans. The Complainant, needing money for his son's education, was already in touch with a nearby bank. Trusting the agent/broker, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,29,900/- on 08.01.2015 and Rs. 1,30,000/- on 04.03.2015, totalling Rs. 2,59,900/- by cheques from his State Bank of India, Bhilai savings account. An employee of the OP collected the cheques, obtained the Complainant's signature on a form, and gathered documents from him. When he inquired about the loan, the OP informed him that the company was not providing loans. Despite contacting the call centre, he received no satisfactory response. After a considerable delay, he received a bond paper from the OP, which he kept. Later, he received a call from the OP's office asking him to deposit the premium amount. It was then that he realized his deposited amount was placed under a Recurring Deposit (RD) scheme, requiring yearly deposits. He contended that the OP and its agent misled him, securing the deposits to earn more commission without disclosing that the deposits were for RD schemes. The OP issued policies No. 01238972 & 01246171 in Complainant's favor for 10 and 12 years, respectively, without his consent. Due to his limited income, large family, and illness, the complainant could not afford the yearly premium payments. He had borrowed money to make the initial deposits. Upon requesting refund from OP, he was informed that premiums must be paid until the end of the policy terms to receive a refund and failure to pay the yearly premiums will result in deductions, as per the policy terms and conditions. The OP committed cheating and deficiency in service, particularly since Rs.1,30,000/- meant for his son's fees was deducted again in March 2016 without his consent. He sent a legal notice dated 17.02.2016 to the OP. However, OP neither responded nor paid the claim amount. Aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.Top of Form

5.      In its written statement, Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ("the Company" or "OP") asserts several points in defense against the allegations made by the Complainant regarding mis-selling and deficiency of service in relation to two life insurance policies. Here is a detailed summary of the Company's defense:

1. The complainant received the policy documents. He failed to review them and instead kept them in a safe place. He is highly educated individual and a Manager at Bhilai Steel Plant, indicating he has the capability to understand the documents. By signing the proposal forms and paying the first premium, he asserted agreement to the terms of the policies.
2. The policies explicitly stated absence of loan provisions. No assurance or promise of loan availability was made.
3. Pre-Issuance Verification Calls were conducted where he confirmed understanding and agreement with policy features.
4. The District Forum is not the appropriate platform due to serious nature of allegations, which require detailed evidence better suited for a Civil Court. Allegations of cheating and mis-selling are against the insurance broker, not the Company.
5. The policies were sourced through India Infoline Insurance Brokers Limited, an independent broker not acting as an agent of the Company. The broker is a necessary party to the complaint, and its absence warrants dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant had a 15-day free look period to review and cancel the policies but did not do so.
7. One of the policies lapsed due to non-payment of renewal premiums. He cannot seek a refund of premiums for the lapsed policy as the risk was covered during the payment period.
8. The complainant obtained the policies for availing a loan, thus falling outside the definition of a consumer under the Act.
9. Allowing complaint would enable people to evade contractual obligations. The premiums paid covered intended insurance risk and failure to review policy or free look period is not their fault.

6.      The Company acted in compliance with the policy terms and the law. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious, aiming to harass and gain undue advantage. The complaint should be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act, for not establishing any deficiency in service. There was no deficiency in service on their part and that his allegations are unfounded, primarily because they pertain to actions by an independent insurance broker and due to his own negligence in reviewing and understanding the policy documents.

7.      The District Forum in its Order dated 22.08.2017 dismissed the complaint with the following observations:

“(16) We found that complainant is such a person in financial condition who is capable to pay the yearly premium of policy and respondent has submitted Form 16 issued by complainant's employer in favor of financial condition of complainant which verified that at the time of policy issuance respondent has issued the policies on the basis of financial condition of complainant. In this way it is verified that complainant has not taken these policies under loan process. Also these policies were not taken directly from insurance company though taken from Insurance Broker India Infoline Insurance Broker Limited. Insurance company verified all the documents provided by complainant and issued the policies. In this way there was no bad intention of the respondent during policy issuance.

(17)     It is clear from case that complainant had taken these policies from Insurance Broker India Infoline Insurance Broker Limited for investment purpose from his big income and both the policies issued by broker but after 11 months his mind was changed he wanted to invest that money in somewhere else and tried to take back that amount. On that respondent denied returning the money and after that complainant hides his information that he was working as Manager (Admin) in bigger Institution Steal Authority of India and said that he was not able to pay the yearly premium. In this way we found that complainant is not present to receive justice with safe hands. It is proved by above situation that respondent insurance company has not reduced in service and not done bad trade practice.

(18) In above situation if respondent has not returned the money according to terms and conditions of policies then it's not keep in category of reduce in service and bad trade practice.

(19) We give conclusion from above case analysis that respondent has not reduced in service and bad trade practice, therefore we don't find the accurate base to accept this complaint and reject the case.”

                      (Extracted from translated copy)

8.      Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Petitioner/ Complainant filed Appeal No. 775/2017 and the State Commission vide Order dated 03.01.2018 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the Order of the District Forum, with following observations:

“13. In the instant case, the appellant (complainant) himself signed the documents i.e. proposal form and financial questionnaire and put his signatures. The appellant (complainant) is an educated person and the appellant (complainant) himself shown his annual income Rs.12,30,855/- for Financial year 2013-14 and Rs.13,49,735/- for the Financial Year 2014-15.

14. In Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. vs. M/s Garg Sons International. II (2013) CPT 1 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed thus :-

"9. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy tlw terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely."

15. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, 2005 (1) CPR 64 (SC); Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-

"6. The terms of the policy have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something. Howsoever liberally we may construe the policy but we cannot take liberalism to the extent of substituting the words which are not intended. It is true that in common parlance the term ‘burglary' would mean theft but it has to be proceeded with force of violence. If the element of force and violence is not preset then the insured cannot claim compensation against theft from the insurance company. (Para 6).

It is not open to interpret the expression appearing in policy in terms of common law; but it has to give meaning to the expression reproduced the terms of the policy as also the definition of burglary and /or housebreaking as defined in the policy."

16. In Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. , I (2009) CPT 6 (SCh Hon'llle Supreme Court has observed thus:-

"11. A policy of insurance is a contract based on an offer (proposal) and an acceptance. The appellant made a proposal. The respondent accepted the proposal with a modification. Therefore, it was a counter proposal, in winch event three would have been no contract. The second was to accept either expressly impliedly, the counter proposal of the respondent (that is respondent's acceptance with modification) which would result in a concluded contract in terms of the counter proposal. The third was to make a counter proposal to the counter proposal of the respondent in which event there would have been no concluded contract unless the respondent agreed to such counter proposal. But the appellant definitely did not have the fourth choice of propounding a concluded contract with a modification neither proposed nor agreed to by either party."

17. In M/s Viiay Concerns vs. State Bank of India, Through Branch Manager & Anr 2013(4)CPR165(NC) has observed thus:-

"8. From the material on record, it is very clear that the place where the loss has occurred was not within the knowledge of the Insurance Company.  Moreover, the Bank can also not be held liable for any deficiency in service, because it was the primary duty of the complainant/ petitioner to obtain the Insurance Policy and to have knowledge about its terms and conditions.

9. The State Commission while passing the impugned order have rightly placed reliance on the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal and in the case Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. according to which the rights and obligations of the parties are strictly governed by the policy of Insurance and no exception or relaxation can be made on the grounds of equity. Further, a similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Mai Ram Niwas Oil Mills Private Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. In which it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:-

"The Courts should always try to interpret the "words" in the insurance contract as they have been expressed by the parties. It is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. The words used in the Insurance Contract must be given paramount importance."

18.  In Narsingh Ispat Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2017 (2) CPR 856 INC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Insurance Contract is a species of commercial transaction and it must be construed strictly like any other contract to its own terms and by itself. Insurance contract like any other contract is binding on parties and endeavour of Court must always be to construe contract in context of terms and conditions in insurance policy."

19. In A.V. Cottex Limited Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2017 (2) CPR 696 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Insurance policy is a contract between insured and insurer and its terms and conditions are to be considered as such in same spirit in which they are written and agreed upon by parties.”

20. In the instant case, the appellant (complainant) himself deposited a sum of Rs.1,29,900/- and Rs.1,130,000/- through cheques and received the policies.  In para 8 & 9 of the written statement, the respondent (O.P.) pleaded that the appellant (Complainant) received the insurance policy on 14.01.2015 and 11.03.2015 and the appellant (complainant) is entitled to cancel the policy within free look period, but the appellant (complainant) did not return the policy bond to the respondent (O.P.) for cancelation of the insurance policy or for changing terms and condition for payment of premium. It shows that the appellant (complainant) himself admitted that the annual premium of policy is Rs.1,29,900 and Rs.1,30,000/-, therefore, it can be safely presumed that the appellant (complainant) read and understand the terms and conditions of the policy and accepted the same, therefore, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are binding on the appellant (complainant).

21.      The District Forum has rightly observed that the respondent (O.P.) has not committed any deficiency in service and the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). The appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the respondent (O.P.). Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.08.2017 passed by learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.

22. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost of this appeal.”

9.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner / Complainant filed the instant Revision Petitions.

10.    The learned counsel for Petitioner/Complainant reiterated the submissions which were already taken in the Complaint as also Memo of Appeal as well as grounds taken in the instant Revision Petitions and sought to allow the Revision Petitions and set aside the impugned orders passed by the fora below.

11.    The learned Counsel for the Respondent/ OP argued in favour of the concurrent finding of the Fora below.  He sought to dismiss the Revision Petitions with costs.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Mohan Lal Benal Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., R.P. No.2870 of 2012, decided on 16.10.2012, MANU/CF/0540/2012;

(ii) Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Vs. LIC of India, R.P. No.634 of 2012, decided on 02.05.213, MANU/CF/0295/2013;

(iii) Gurmail Singh v. Avivia Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. MANU/CF/1077/2017;

(iv) Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. K.S. Eshwarappa and Ors., MANU/CF/0490/2015.

12.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the parties.

13.    The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined by its detailed order that no intervention is warranted in the District Forum's order. It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings with well-reasoned orders. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

14.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

15.    Similarly, in a recent order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 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.

16.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petitions No.488 and 489 of 2018 and the same are therefore, Dismissed.

17.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

18.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.