JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. -2- 2. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Commission did not decide the application for condonation of delay of 95 days and decided the case without adhering to that application. He further contends that the respondent had filed a false affidavit. 3. We see no merit in this argument. The petitioner has got no case on merits. It is interesting to note that Mr. Navneet Kumar, the complainant himself was the insured at the time of obtaining the policy. Mr. Navneet Kumar was minor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards Bajaj Insurance Life Insurance Company Limited initially unit statement, Bajaj Allianz New Family Gain, which shows that the policy owner is Mr. Shiv Kumar and the life assured is Mr. Navneet Kumar. He has also invited our attention towards another document under the heading of ‘New Family Policy Gain’. Its relevant para runs as follows: “It provides solid financial protection and valuable life cover coupled with option to select additional rider benefits including accidental death and disability benefits, critical illness and hospital cash -3- benefit make this investment a comprehensive protection plan for you and your family.” 4. Unfortunately, Shri Shiv Kumar expired on 21.7.2007 during the subsistence of the insurance policy. Mr. Navneet Kumar, the assured has filed this petition with the prayer that the insurance amount be granted to him. He submits that he was minor and could not pay the remaining installments. The District Forum allowed the complaint but the State Commission dismissed the complaint while allowing the appeal by observing as under: “Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has drawn our attention to the brochure of the company in which it has been stipulated in Sr. No. 1 under the heading aims and benefits of life insurance that entire sum insured will be paid in the case of untimely death of insured person, whereas in other saving schemes of the company, only the money deposited is refunded along with interest. Against this clause, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that since it in the present case the person insured had died, therefore, complainant is entitled to the sum insured. But we do not agree with the above contention of the learned counsel for the -4- respondent. Because he is presuming that person to be insured who had taken the insurance policy for his minor son, whereas the person insured is the person for whom the policy has been taken and not the person who has taken the policy. There is absolutely no dispute before us that in the present case deceased had taken policy for his minor son who is complainant in this case and therefore, the son of deceased insurance holder is the complainant and not the deceased. In the circumstances, the appeal against impugned judgment is liable to be allowed. Because the learned District Forum has erred in drawing out the true meaning of the policy holder.” 5. The order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The revision petitions is sans merit, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
