Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company states that as per his instructions, on receipt of the impugned order on 11.7.2014, the Insurance Company did not ask the Respondent/Complainant to furnish any documents to facilitate processing of his case for compensation in terms of the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, a list of the documents, which were required by the Respondent/Complainant had already been communicated to the Respondent when his case was closed as ‘no claim’.

          We are not convinced with the explanation furnished. As a matter of fact inaction on the part of the Insurance Company despite a specific direction by the State Commission in this behalf speak volumes of its conduct.

          Having regard to the stand of the Insurance Company before the lower fora that the claim preferred by the Respondent/Complainant has not yet been repudiated, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference.  Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.