CHARAN KAUR vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

BY this revision petition, the complainant has challenged the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in appeal no. 608 of 2009 filed by the respondent Insurance Company.

THE petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in that the latter repudiated the insurance claim filed by her as the nominee in the insurance policy obtained by her husband for the sum of Rs.2 lakh. The complaint was resisted by the respondent insurance company on the ground that the insurance amount was payable to the nominee only in the case of death of the insured by accident whereas the husband of the complainant (insured) had died of natural causes. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sriganganagar (in short, ''the District Forum '') allowed the complaint and directed the respondent insurance company to pay to the complainant Rs.2 lakh (sum insured) with interest @ 9% per annum from 04.07.1996 till payment and Rs.1100/- towards cost. Aggrieved by this order, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission observed that the complainant (widow of the insured) had filed the complaint on 04.10.2006, i.e., after nearly 9 years as her husband had died on 09.11.1997. Even the legal notice sent by the complainant was dated 04.07.2006. She had alleged that her husband died because of injuries received during a fight between two bulls. However, there was no record of any treatment at any hospital nor was any report filed with the police. There was no independent witness of the alleged incident leading to the death of the insured. The complainant did not aver that her husband died of an accident to which she herself was a witness nor did she cite even a neighbour as an eye witness to the alleged accident leading to her husband ''s death. Considering these reasons, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

IN respect of her revision petition, the petitioner/complainant has sent a communication (received on 29.09.2011 date of hearing) stating that she is unable to bear the travel cost to Delhi for appearance before this Commission and the revision petition may be decided on the basis of the petition and the documents already filed.

IN view of this, I have considered the revision petition as well as all the documents filed therewith. I find that the State Commission has returned its findings after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material brought on record, none of which has been effectively countered by the petitioner/complainant in the revision petition.

AS a result, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.