This revision is directed against the order of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, dated 28.5.2014 in first appeal No.85/2013. The State Commission vide impugned order reversed the finding of the District Forum allowing the complaint filed by the -2- petitioner/complainant and dismissed the complaint imposing cost of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging that he purchased seven “Market Plus Insurance Policies” bearing Nos.41750027, 417050030 to 32, 417050050, 417050069 and 417050034 from the respondent/opposite party No.1. It was the case of the complainant that he had paid premium for six policies by cheque and premium for policy No.417050050 for Rs.25,000/- was paid in cash. The policies were purchased on 28.2.2007. When the petitioner applied for surrender of policies on 7.2.2011, surrender value of six policies was paid to the complainant but the opposite party No.1 declined to make payment in respect of policy No. 417050050 on the plea that no consideration for the said policy was paid and actually it was issued by mistake. 3. Opposite party No.1 pleaded that aforesaid policy was cancelled on the same day on noticing the error and against the proposal form submitted in respect of the said policy, a replacement policy No. 417050369 was issued. 4. Opposite party No.1 on being served with the notice of the complaint resisted the complaint on merits taking aforesaid pleas. -3- The District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties and the evidence, did not find merit in the defence of the opposite party and allowed the complaint directing the respondent/opposite party as under: - “That the case being C.C. No.251 of 2011 be and same is decreed on contest against OPs with cost of Rs.10,000/- The OP s are directed to repay the policy bond bearing No. 417050050 within 15 days from this date. OPs are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for his harassment and mental agony to the complainant within the time specified above failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till realization. Let a plain copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.” 6. Opposite party No.1 being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission, West Bengal in appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order reversed the finding of the District forum and dismissed the complaint. The basic reason for the order of the State Commission was that no consideration was paid in respect of subject policy, which was issued due to inadvertent error. When and when the error was noticed, said policy was cancelled and a fresh policy No. 417050369 was issued as a replacement policy. The main reason for aforesaid finding of the State Commission was that the complainant failed to show the receipt for payment of cash Rs.25,000/- as premium for the subject policy. -4- 7. Learned Shri Sanjay Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is against the facts and based upon conjectures and surmises. It is argued that the State Commission fell in error in concluding that the subject insurance policy is without consideration and was issued due to inadvertent error on the part of the opposite party. It is contended that non-production of receipt for payment of the cash premium of Rs.25,000/- was not so material for the reason that admittedly the opposite party insurance company had issued seven insurance policies including the insurance policy pertaining to the payment of cash Rs.25,000/- as premium. Once the complainant had received the insurance policy, he was not expected to retain the receipt for payment. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party No.1 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. It is contended that actually the complainant submitted six proposal forms for purchase of six policies. Alongwith the proposal form he gave the cheque of Rs.1,47,000/- which was total amount of premium for six policies. It is argued that the concerned Cashier due to inadvertent error made an entry regarding the payment of Rs.25,000/- as cash pertaining to the subject policy. The error came to the notice of the insurance company on the same day and the subject policy was cancelled. As no -5- premium was paid for the subject policy, the State Commission has rightly allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 9. We have considered the rival contentions. In our considered view, order of the State Commission is based upon conjectures and surmises. Merely because the complainant could not produce the receipt, the State Commission was not supposed to draw presumption that he has not paid consideration for the subject policy particularly when the original policy was already delivered to the complainant. It is the case of the opposite party that subject policy was issued due to human error and the error was detected on the same day. If that was the case, we fail to appreciate as to how seven policies were dispatched to the complainant and why the opposite party did not intimate the complainant about the issuance of subject policy because of mistake and cancelled the subject insurance policy immediately. 10. Perusal of the record would show that the defence taken by the opposite party surfaced for the first time when letter dated 22.3.2011 which is annexure R-4 to the reply was issued to the petitioner. Silence of opposite party No.1 on the subject for four years is sufficient to conclude that the defence set up in letter dated 22.3.2011 is only an afterthought. A possibility cannot be ruled out that after taking cash of Rs.25,000/- against premium of the subject insurance -6- policy, the Casher did not make relevant entry in the record and pocketed the amount. 11. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the State Commission cannot be sustained in exercise of revisonal jurisdiction. We accordingly allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. 12. Opposite party No.1 is directed to comply with the order of the District Forum within one month, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for execution. | 
