ORDER : 1. The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.463 of 2022. 2. The facts between the parties are not in dispute. The second respondent-Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited has not seriously contested the deficiency in service, which has been established both before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the National Commission”). However, the learned counsel for petitioner would raise an objection with reference to the reduction of compensation by the National Commission from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the reason stated by the National Commission, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt.Ltd., v. D.S.Dhanda in C.A.Nos.4910-4941 of 2019 dated 10.05.2019, for reducing the compensation granted by the State Commission would be inadequate in the context of deficiency in service established by the writ petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would oppose by stating that the National Commission has considered the quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission and found that it is excessive. Therefore, the present writ petition is to be rejected. 4. Admittedly, the actual premium amount of Rs.99,900/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in the event of delay beyond one month, has been directed to be settled in favour of the writ petitioner. The second respondent has no objection to settle the said amount. 5. Regarding compensation, the State Commission awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and hardship caused to the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the deficiency in service is so serious, which resulted in causing great mental agony and therefore the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the State Commission itself is meagre. 6. This Court is unable to agree with the said contention, in view of the fact that award of compensation must be in commensuration with the nature of deficiency of service established before the Courts. Though award of compensation is a discretion vested on the Court, the Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach, by standing in a position of a prudent man, to assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Though award of compensation is a discretion vested on the Court, the Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach, by standing in a position of a prudent man, to assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded. In this regard, nature of deficiency of service plays a pivotal role. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has taken an insurance policy under Kotak Child Advantage Plan for the benefit of his grandson. However, the name of the beneficiary has been erroneously recorded. No doubt, it is a gross mistake committed by the second respondent. They have realised the mistake. They have not disputed the amount to be refunded along with interest to the petitioner. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the National Commission formed an opinion that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- granted by the State Commission is excessive and not in commensuration with the established deficiency of service. The power of discretion exercised by the National Commission deserves no interference, as such interference would not do any service to the cause of justice. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the National Commission. The second respondent is directed to settle the award amount as ordered by the National Commission within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the writ petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 30072 of 2024 is closed. No costs.