Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, who appeared in person, and learned Counsel for the Bank and Insurance Company.  As per order dated 29.01.2024, Petitioner was granted one week time to place on record any document which will show whether the deceased did any POS transaction for the period 26.03.2013 i.e., the day when he got the platinum card till the date of the death i.e.,09.04.2013. However, till date the Petitioner have not produced any such record / evidence. The counsel for the Bank and Insurance Company had argued that to be eligible for claim under the said policy, which is master policy taken by the Bank, the Card holder (platinum card), for accidental death coverage, should have done atleast one POS transaction in the last three months. In the present case, the platinum card was delivered on 26.03.2013, the card holder died on 09.04.2013 and during this period no POS transaction was done. The first POS transaction with the card is dated 29.05.2013, which was done by the LRs of deceased after the date of death. The bank has already filed statement of account of the said card from 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 which shows that there is no POS transaction for the period of three months prior to the date of death i.e., 09.04.2013. The State Commission in its order has appropriately dealt with the contentions of both sides. It is a well-reasoned order and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. As per held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held 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.”  There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the said order. Hence, the same is upheld. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.