1.      The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 16.09.2014 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) in CC No.14/2006.

2.     Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had taken a housing loan from OP No. 2, with her husband as the co-borrower. Complainant took an Insurance Policy from OP No. 1 for personal accident benefit of Rs. 34,00,000/- and the Policy was valid upto 12.06.2028. The Policy also insured the aforesaid loan in case of death of the insured. The Complainant’s husband, who was also the co-borrower died due to Naxalite attack on 25.05.2013. The matter was reported to the Police Station. As per the Complainant, in case of death of the Complainant or her husband, the insured amount was to be adjusted against the loan obtained by the Complainant from Op No. 2 Bank. The claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the ground that it fell under the Exclusion Clause of the Policy. Since the claim of the Complainant was repudiated, a Complaint was filed in the State Commission with the following prayer:-

“A. That the OP No. 1 may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant.

B. That the OP No. 2 may be directed to discharge the complainant from paying the home loan and for which the OP No. 2 will be liable,.

C. That on the claim amount of Rs.34,00,000/- the interest @ 18% may be awarded from date of filing of the complaint till the payment.

D. That the complainant from 11-06-2013 and after that on various dates has paid the installment of home loan of Rs.3,41,275/- from the Ops. The Ops may be direct to pay the said amount jointly or severally.

E. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission deems fit may also be granted against OPs”

3.    The Complaint was contested by the OPs. OP No. 1/Insurance Company stated that the Complainant’s husband died due to naxalite attack and by virtue of the Insurance Policy’s Exclusion Clause, the Complainant was not entitled to get the insured amount from OP No. 1 and therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. OP No. 2/Bank stated that since the claim of the Complainant was repudiated by OP No. 1, the Complainant is liable to deposit the loan amount with the OP No. 2. The dispute was between the Complainant and the Insurance Company, and was not related to OP No. 2 and therefore, Complaint against OP No. 2 was liable to be dismissed.

4.    The State Commission after hearing both the parties and perusing the record of the case, passed the following directions: -

“Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops, is liable to be dismissed, hence the same is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.”

5.   Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Complainant preferred the present Appeal.

6.    Heard the Learned Counsels for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Brief facts of the Case are that the Complainant purchased a Plot bearing No. 14 situated at Avani Pride, Daldalseoni Road, Mowa, Raipur by obtaining a loan from OP No. 2 for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. The husband of the Complainant was the co-borrower. The Complainant insured the loan by obtaining an Insurance Policy which was valid upto 12.06.2028. The husband of the Complainant, who was also the co-borrower, died on 25.05.2013 at Jhiram Ghati due to Naxalite attack. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Darbha, Jagdalpur. The Complainant made a claim before OP No 1. The claim, however, was repudiated on the ground that the said incident and death of Complainant’s husband was not payable as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant/Appellant contended that the State Commission erred in holding that the claim of the Complainant fell under the Exclusion Clause of the Insurance Policy.  As the death of Complainant’s husband was accidental, the amount insured was liable to be paid as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 contended that the Complainant’s husband died due to Naxalite attack and such a situation falls in the Exclusion clause of the Insurance Policy and therefore, the claim of the Complainant was not liable to be paid. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 contended that the dispute was between the Complainant and the Insurance Company, and was not related to Respondent No. 2 and therefore, Complaint against Respondent No. 2 was liable to be dismissed.

7.    As per the General Exclusion clause of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured as consequence of “war, invasion, act of foreign enemy hostilities or war like operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, mutiny, civil commotion assuming the proportions of or amounting to a popular rising, military rising, rebellion, revolution, insurrection or military or usurped power and any act of terrorism.” It is admitted that the complainant’s husband died due to Naxalite attack, which squarely falls within the ambit of the aforementioned Exclusion Clause of the Policy. The State Commission has rightly observed that “In the instant case also the deceased Yogendra Sharma died due to Naxalite attack, therefore, General Exclusion Clause of the insurance policy is applicable in this case. On the basis of General Exclusion Clause of the insurance policy, the OP No. 1 (Insurance Company) is not liable to indemnify the complainant.”

8.   Based on the foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission. The present Appeal is dismissed.