1.      This Revision Petition No.1120 of 2017 was filed on 26.04.2017 challenging the impugned order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 04.11.2016. Vide this order, the learned State Commission dismissed Appeal No.523 of 2015.  The said Appeal was filed against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (‘District Forum’, hereafter) dated 12.01.2015. Vide this order, the District Forum, had directed the petitioner/OP-M/s. HDFC Bank (‘OP’, hereafter) to pay Rs.5,00,000 with 9% interest p.a. from 18.09.2014 till realization along with Rs.10,000 as consolidated compensation towards mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

2.      The matter, in brief as per the Complainant, are that the son of the Respondents/ Complainants (‘Complainants’, hereafter), namely Shri Randhir Singh availed the services of the OP by opening one bank account bearing number 043210007591. At the time of opening the account, the OP had also issued a debit card and further informed that the debit card holders are insured for Rs.5 Lakh each, which is payable to his nominee in case of accidental death of the debit card holder. It was further averred that the OP did not issue any insurance policy to the life assured.  The case of the Complainants is that on 30.10.2013 Shri Randhir Singh died in a road accident in the jurisdiction of PS Kanwan, District Dhar (MP) and FIR No.372 dated 30.10.2013 was also lodged. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant Shri Hakam Singh approached OP for lodging the claim and submitted all the documents as demanded by the OP. It was informed by the OP that the documents will be forwarded to the insured for payment of claim. The case of the Complainant is that thereafter he visited the OP so many times, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the Complainants have the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Barnala. The OP in its Reply had taken the objections on the ground that the Complainant has no locus standi of cause of action to file the case and that the same is frivolous, vexatious and that District Forum had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the Complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that deceased Shri Randhir Singh had a saving bank account with the OP. however, it was denied that he was ever insured for Rs.5 Lakh, payable in case of his accidental death. As Shri Randhir Singh was not insured with the OP, the question of any insurance cover to him by OP does not arise at all.

3.      On appeal, the State Commission, dismissed the same.  The State Commission reasoned as below:

“11. Counsel for OP No.1 on merits of the appeal argued that as per Ex.C-6 Easyshop Gold Debit Card insured had insurance cover in case of personal accidental death covered by air, road, rail or road to pay sum of Rs.5 lac and along with written arguments usage guide along with terms and conditions was placed on the record and according to that guide for claim under the personal accident insurance/loss of checked package insurance to be accepted and processed, the card holder should have carried out one purchase transaction using the debit card within 6 months prior to the event date. In case, OP No.1 has taken the plea that no such insurance cover was given to the DLA, then how it can reply upon those terms and conditions. Even if those terms and conditions were there before the District Forum it did not produce any evidence that these were brought to the notice of the insured. Further, there is no statement of account showing no transaction by the DLA within 6 months prior to the date of event. In these circumstances, the District Forum was justified to allow the complaint. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the District Forum and the findings recorded by the District Forum are hereby affirmed.

12.  In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.”

4.      The pleadings and associated documents were examined and thoughtful consideration was rendered to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the parties. Admittedly, the Complainants' son had availed the Respondent’s services by opening bank account No. 043210007591. At the time of account opening, the Respondents also issued a debit card and assured that debit cardholders were insured for Rs. 5 lakh each, payable to their nominee in the event cardholder's accidental death.

5.      Upon reviewing the arguments presented and examining the records, including the orders and reasoning of the District Forum and the State Commission, I am inclined to support the decisions of the lower fora as the learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on the documents before it, following hearings and consultations with the learned counsels. Further, the learned State Commission, after hearing both parties, determined that the District Forum's order required no intervention. This was primarily because the OP failed to disclose the insurance plan under which the complainant was covered, despite being sought to do so. It is a fundamental legal principle that no additional evidence can be allowed at the stage of revision proceedings that contradicts the established pleadings. Therefore, if the OPs pleadings are inconsistent with their stance in the application, additional evidence cannot be permitted against their original claims. This order is now being challenged at the revision stage.

6.      It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. Thus, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  I would like to rely upon 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.

7.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, has held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under:-

“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. .....”

8.      Similarly, in a recent the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, it was 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.

9.      Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld.

10.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.