Shiv Nath, husband of the complainant/respondent had taken a life insurance policy from the petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 31.3.2003.  He died on 06.2.2004.  Respondent lodged the claim with the petitioner insurance company, which repudiated the same on the ground of suppression of facts.  It was alleged that the respondent had been taking alcohol for the last 25 years and was addicted to it, which fact was not disclosed by him in the declaration form at the

-2-

time of taking of the policy.  Respondent being aggrieved filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission by the impugned order allowed the appeal and held that late Shiv Nath was guilty of suppression of material facts while taking the policy.  However, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- in lump sum as ex-gratia payment to the complainant.

          Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition.

          Notice was issued to the respondent.  Rs.4,000/- were ordered to be paid to the respondent by the petitioner for meeting the litigation expenses.  Respondent has been served by way of dasti service.  She has also been paid the litigations costs of Rs.4,000/-.  Respondent is not present despite service.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to sue moto order the payment of ex-gratia payment.  For this proposition, he places reliance upon the

-3-

judgment of this Commission in Revision Petition No.858/2009 titled as LIC of India Vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors. and other connected matters decided on 17.12.2009 in which this Commission has taken the view that the State Commission does not have the jurisdiction to order payment of ex-gratia without consent of the insurance company.  As the point involved in the present case is squarely in favour of the petitioner, this revision petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in Prahland Singh’s case (supra).  Impugned order is set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.