Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 25.4.2001 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) by which an order dated 21.5.1998 passed by the District Forum directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,13,021 /- together with interest at the 12 percent per annum to the petitioner has been set aside. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows : "The petitioner took a Medicliam policy from the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance company). During the subsistence of the said policy, the petitioner underwent Angeography followed by Angeoplasty in Appolo Hospital at Chennai incurring an expenditure of Rs. 1,13,021/-. The petitioner thereafter claimed the said sum from the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the petitioner obtained the policy suppressing his pre- existing disease. The petitioner in the circumstances filed a complaint before the Calcutta District Consumer Forum against the Insurance Company claiming the said sum of Rs. 1,13,021/- together with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. The District Forum upon contested hearing allowed the, claim of the petitioner. The District Forum in its judgment held that "the Insurance Company by not filing those documents could not prove that the complainant suppressed material facts about the pre-existing disease. Therefore, we hold that the claim has been repudiated arbitrarily. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Insurance Company." The order directing the Insurance Company to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,13,021/- together with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum and a sum of Rs. 500/- on account of costs was passed by the District Forum on 21.5.1998. On 23.9.1998 the Insurance Company applied, before the State Commission under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for revision of the order dated 21.5.1998 passed by the District Forum inter alia on the ground that the conclusion of the District forum was without any basis whatsoever. The revisional application was admitted on 23.9.1998 by a member sitting singly. The State Commission during the hearing of the revisional application allowed the Insurance company to rely on a number of documents not previously disclosed and on the basis of those documents came to the conclusion that "the complainant had been previously afflicted with inferior wall Myocordial infarction in January, 1985, and subsequently he had CABG operation in July 1985...... It is apparent that this pre-existing disease had been suppressed at the time of taking out the policy and fraud had been practised.... Therefore were have no hesitation to hold that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant was quite justified. Consequently, we think that the Forum was not justified in decreeing the claim. It appears that the case was not contested properly before the Forum. The Insurance Company did not produce all the relevant papers in support of their contention. Resultantly, the Forum had passed an award in favour of the complainant.... In that view of the matter we allow the revisional petition and set aside the impugned judgment".
(2.) It is against this order that the petitioner has come up before this Court. Mr. Chowdhury learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition contended that - (a) The order dated 21.5.1998 being an appealable order the State Commission had no jurisdiction to exercise revisional power. (b) Time to prefer an appeal is 30 days from the date of the order and upon expiry of 30 days from 21.5.1998 the order became final. (c) A member sitting singly had no jurisdiction to admit the revision. Therefore the order admitting the revision is bad. Therefore all orders passed subsequent thereto are equally bad. (d) In any event, the State Commission overstepped the revisional jurisdiction.
(3.) Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the Insurance Company contended that this application is not maintainable because the order passed by the State Commission is appealable. I shall now consider the merits of the contentions advanced before me. Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides as follows : "Section 24. Finality of orders.- Every order of a District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final." ;