Page 106 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 106

tioner :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 23 Jun 2017
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved of the dismissal of his appeal for non-prosecution
vide impugned order dated 19.5.2017 passed by the State Commission, West Bengal
has preferred this revision petition.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that
the respondent filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner insurance company
alleging that his wife was insured with the petitioner company. During the currency of
the policy the insured died due to burn injuries. Insurance claim was submitted with
the insurance company. The opposite party insurance company, however, repudiated
the claim on the ground that the insured had committed suicide and no insurance
claim was payable as per the insurance contract in a case of suicide.
3. District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed
the consumer complaint and directed the petitioner insurance company to pay to the
complainant a sum of Rs.2,39,241/- within 40 days from the date of the order besides
compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. It was ordered that in
the event of the opposite party failing to pay the amount to the complainant, the com-
plainant would be entitled to execute the order and recover the money with interest @
8% p.a. on the awarded amount till the date of realization.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred
an appeal before the State Commission being first appeal No.A/637/2016. The appeal,
however, came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.5.2017 due to non appear-
ance on behalf of the appellant. The impugned order reads as under: -
―Order No.7
Ld. Advocate for the respondent No.1 is only present. Today is fixed for filing
reply to show the cause. However, appellant is neither present nor take any steps.
It appears that the appellant lastly appeared before this Commission on 11.1.2017.
Since then, during 3 consecutive occasions he has remained absent. Seemingly,
the appellant no longer interested to proceed with its appeal. Accordingly, the ap-
peal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.‖
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absence of the appellant be-
fore the State Commission on 19.5.2017 was unintentional. Actually on the said date
petitioner was under the impression that he would be represented by the advocate on
record but the advocate on record could not appear, as he was indisposed and the
State Commission refused to entertain the junior counsel, who was not on record. It is
further submitted that even on the earlier date i.e. 17.4.2017 the counsel for the appel-
lant due to traffic congestion got late and by the time he reached the State Commis-
sion, the matter had already been adjourned. It is further submitted that the petitioner
has a strong case in appeal and if the impugned order is not set aside, the appellant
shall suffer injustice.
6. We do not find merit in the above contention firstly for the reason that no
medical certificate has been filed to show that advocate on record was indisposed as a

INDEX