Challenge in these proceedings is to the concurrent findings and orders of fora below. 

We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Nirwani, learned counsel for the petitioner-insurance company and have considered his submission.  The insurance claim was repudiated only on the ground that the death of the assured was not on account of accident but he had consumed some insecticides while he was under the influence of intoxication or influence of liquor.  This was based on some statements of some villagers.  Otherwise, the case of the complainant throughout was that the assured died while he was spraying the insecticides in his field.  Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the impugned order on the ground that no bodily injury was caused to the deceased and, therefore, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company.  We have recorded this submission simply to be rejected because the injury envisaged in the body does not necessarily mean visible apparent external injury only and any internal injury which caused harm to the deceased is also bodily injury.  This has been so established in the catena of decisions of this Commission based on certain decisions in several cases.

We see no illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference of this Commission under revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The revision petition is dismissed.