JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short ‘The State Commission’) passed in FA No. 2060 of 2005. By the impugned order the State Commission has allowed appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 16.09.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind by which the said forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant and had directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 1.1.1999 till realisation besides litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. In appeal the State Commission has allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and as a consequence dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the original complainant is in revision before us. 2. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the orders passed by the fora below as also the material obtaining on record. The Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of fact respective pleas of the parties and evidence and material produced by them in support of their respective pleas. In this connection, he submits that the State Commission has wrongly held that the death of the deceased / insured Jitender was not accidental and he died a natural death. We find the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as totally devoid of any merit whatsoever because the Doctor who conducted the Post-Mortem examination on the body of deceased insured Jitender, has in clear cut words recorded that the death is due to Asphyxia as a result of generalised convulsions. The complainant tried to put forth a case of the death of Jitender on account of fall from the stair case of the house. However, no evidence was led in that behalf. In any case that plea has to be rejected absolutely false because the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem did not find even a single scratch (abrasion) or any external injury or internal injury on the body of the deceased, which could be attributed to a fall from a stair case. It is unheard of that a person falling from the stair case and consequently dying would not suffer even slightest injury on his body. The findings reached by the State Commission are based on correct and proper appreciation of facts and material brought on record. The State Commission has done well in correcting the erroneous finding of the District Forum by which the District Forum had held that death of Jitender was accidental in nature. We see no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed in limine.