Concurrent Findings Of Facts , National Commission Refuses Interference In Revision Petition By United India Insurance Co: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant and his wife purchased a medical policy from the United India Insurance/insurer under the Synd Arogya Scheme with Syndicate Bank ten years ago. According to the brochure, the policy was supposed to provide coverage until the age of 80. However, when it was due for renewal, the insurer did not renew it under the original terms and conditions. Instead, they quoted a much higher premium, explaining that the scheme was no longer available due to the merger of Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank. Additionally, the complainant noted that while the policy was originally in the name of Adarsh Soni, it was renewed in the complainant's name, who is older, possibly to justify a higher premium, which was not the practice earlier. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint. The insurer later filed an appeal in the State Commission against the District Forum's order but the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the insurer filed a revision petition in the National Commission.

Contentions of the Insurer

The insurer argued that the complainant's policy was under the Synd Arogya scheme, a customized policy created as part of a Group Health Insurance Scheme in collaboration with Syndicate Bank. The insurer had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Syndicate Bank to provide medical insurance to the bank's staff and clients at agreed rates. However, the government's decision to merge Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank led to the termination of the corporate agency agreement between Syndicate Bank and the insurer. As a result, the insurer could no longer renew the complainant's policy at the same premium rates available under the agreement with Syndicate Bank, leading to higher premium quotes for renewal.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that The Commission observed that it is a well-established legal principle that the scope for revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act, 2019, grants very limited jurisdiction to this Commission. In this case, the findings of fact are concurrent and well-reasoned, thereby limiting the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The Commission referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr., wherein the court emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is extremely limited. It can only be exercised when the State Commission has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted with material irregularity. In this specific case, the National Commission exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by relying solely on a report from the respondent bank, concluding that the lower fora failed to conduct a thorough appraisal of the case. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd., the Supreme Court reiterated that the National Commission's powers under Section 21(b) are limited. The National Commission can only intervene if the State Commission exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or acted with material irregularity.

Hence, the Commission dismissed the petition and upheld the State Commission's order.

Case Title: United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Sukh Lal Soni

Case Number: R.P. No. 2352/2023