Page 107 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3
P. 107

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017                    107



                       result of which he could not appear on hearing dated 19.5.2017. Even the affidavit of
                       advocate on record or the junior counsel has not been filed to substantiate the afore-
                       said submission. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the appellant absented
                       from the proceedings on three consecutive occasions which is clear indication of the
                       fact that the petitioner/appellant was not vigilant in pursuing its appeal. Thus, we do
                       not find fault with the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal for non-
                       prosecution more so because of the reason that as per the scheme of the Consumer
                       Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Fora are under obligation to decide the consumer
                       matters expeditiously.
                          7.       It is pertinent to note that the insurance claim of the respondent was repudi-
                       ated on the ground that the insured has committed suicide. Counsel for the petitioner
                       when asked to show the evidence that the insured committed suicide, has referred to
                       the investigation report (page 71) which records as under: -
                            ―Sequence  of  Death-  During  investigation  it  revealed  that  LA  suffered  deep
                          burn  injury  (80%)  on  1.12.2014  by  igniting  herself  with  kerosene  oil  over  her
                          body  and  put  the  body  on  flame  at  1500  hrs.   after  an  altercation  with  family
                          members.  Family  members  initially  taken  to  Tamluk  Govt.  Hospital  and  subse-
                          quently  shifted  to  Peerless  General  Hospital,  Kolkata  on  2.12.2014  and  after
                          treatment expired over there on 7.12.2014 at 0740 am.‖
                           8.       On reading of the above, we find that the conclusion of the investigator is
                       based upon something revealed during investigation. However, there is no evidence to
                       show as to what is the source of that revelation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
                       petitioner  has  discharged  its  onus  to  prove  that  the  insured  had  committed  suicide.
                       Thus, in our view, even the repudiation is not justified.
                          9.       In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the revision peti-
                       tion. Accordingly dismissed.


                         ......................J
                         AJIT BHARIHOKE
                         PRESIDING MEMBER
                         ......................
                         REKHA GUPTA
                         MEMBER




















                                                       INDEX
   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112