Pursuant to the order dated 22.7.2010, notice was given dasti to the petitioner – LIC for service on the respondent / complainant. Service report of that notice filed by Shri Singh, be taken on file.  This report would show that the respondent was served personally with the notice for today.  Another set of notice was sent by registered post to the respondent by the Registry and A.D. thereof is placed on the file. Despite service of notice both ways, the respondent is absent and she is, therefore, proceeded ex parte.

          Harichand, husband of the respondent had purchased two policies of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on 2.10.1998 from the petitioner – LIC. He died on 14.2.99. Claim was repudiated by the petitioner - Insurance Company on ground of the life assured having committed suicide within one year of the purchase of the policies.  District Forum particularly taking note of the report of investigation of the police dismissed the complaint vide order dated 2.9.2005 holding it to be a case of suicide by the life assured. Appeal against Forum’s order filed by the respondent though was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 3.8.2009, still State Commission chose to award Rs.20,000/- as ex – gratia payment to the respondent.  Relying on the judgment in R.P. No. 858 of 2009, LIC of India vs. Prahlad Singh and connected revision petitions decided on 17.12.2009 by this Commission, the short submission advanced by Shri Singh is that the State Commission is not empowered to grant ex – gratia payment. Considering the ratio of the said decision, the order of State Commission deserves to be set aside being not legally maintainable.

          Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order of State Commission awarding Rs.20,000/- by way of ex – gratia payment to the respondent is set aside and complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.