In a recent judgement, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by AVM J. Rajendra, stated that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) is restricted. This jurisdiction can only be invoked when the State Commission has overstepped its legal boundaries, failed to exercise its vested jurisdiction, or acted with gross irregularity.
The case in question involved a man and his wife who bought a medical policy from United India Insurance under the Synd Arogya Scheme with Syndicate Bank a decade ago. The policy, according to the brochure, was meant to cover the couple until they reached 80 years of age. However, when it came time to renew the policy, the insurer did not do so under the original terms and conditions. Instead, they demanded a significantly higher premium, stating that the scheme was no longer available due to the merger of Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank.
The complainant also noticed that while the policy was initially in the name of Adarsh Soni, it was renewed in the complainant’s name, who is older. This was possibly done to justify the higher premium, which was not the practice earlier. Distressed by these circumstances, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, who ruled in their favour. The insurer then appealed this decision in the State Commission, but the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the insurer filed a revision petition in the National Commission.
The insurer contended that the complainant’s policy was under the Synd Arogya scheme, a unique policy developed as part of a Group Health Insurance Scheme in partnership with Syndicate Bank. The insurer had an agreement with Syndicate Bank to provide medical insurance to the bank’s employees and customers at agreed rates. Nevertheless, the government’s decision to merge Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank resulted in the dissolution 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 offered under the agreement with Syndicate Bank, leading to higher premium quotes for renewal.
The Commission noted 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, offers very limited jurisdiction to this Commission. In this case, the findings were well-reasoned, thereby limiting the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. The Commission also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr., wherein the court stressed that the National Commission’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is extremely limited.
In conclusion, 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
