Heard counsel for the petitioner.  The revision has been filed against concurrent findings of two fora below.  The State Commission in an elaborate judgment has given several reasons while confirming the order of the District Forum.  Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before us after placing reliance on the application form for membership that the annual premium was required to be deducted between 1.7.2007 to 5.7.2007 but since the balance in the account of the complainant was not sufficient during that period, the premium could not be realized from the Bank account of the respondent/complainant.  He further submitted that even though, there was sufficient balance later on in the account of complainant, annual premium could not be deducted since there was no specific instructions to them.  It is no doubt true that as per findings of the fora below as on 1.7.2007, there was not sufficient balance in the account of the complainant.  However, the fora below have found that thereafter, sufficient amount was available on 18.7.2007 in the account of the complainant and the balance available at that time was Rs.6172.50p.  The scheme in question is welfare scheme and the petitioner could deducted the premium from the account of the respondent/complainant when the balance was available as on 18.7.2007 and even thereafter during the year 2007-2008.  The State Commission has also found that the salary of the complainant was being deposited every month in the Bank account of the complainant and sufficient balance was available but the petitioner did not deduct the amount of the premium.  We are entirely agree with the conclusion drawn by the State Commission.  We do not find any merit in this revision and revision is, accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost.