Aggrieved by the concurrent finding and orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission, the State of Rajasthan has filed the present petition under section 21(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Petition has been filed after undue delay of 244 days and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed.  Delay is sought to be condoned primarily on the ground that after the impugned order was made, the petitioner was advised to file an application for recall of the order passed by the State Commission which was disposed of by the State Commission. Soon thereafter the present petition has been filed. The petition before the State Commission for recall/review of the order was wholly misconceived as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not confer any review jurisdiction on the District Forum or the State Commission to recall or review its own order. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay in this case.  Even then we have examined the matter on merits and we find that the present case is fully covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs. Basanti Devi & Anr.,(1999) 8 SCC 229 and Chairman, LIC and others vs. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar, (2005) 6 SCC 188 inasmuch as here also the petitioner-State of Rajasthan had failed to deduct and remit the insurance premium payable to the LIC within the stipulated period, as a consequence of which the insurance lapsed.

In our view, the orders passed by the fora below are eminently justified and do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity which calls for our interference. Dismissed.