Deceased husband of petitioner had obtained a Janta Accident Policy covering risk for the period from 11.11.199 to 10.11.2008 and had paid premium towards policy. However, as ill luck would have it, he having slipped from stair case of his house on 28.1.2002 succumbed to injuries sustained by him on 5.3.2002. After claim was lodged by widow of the deceased, that was repudiated, for policy having been withdrawn by Insurance Company on 8.1.2002 prior to death of the insured in pursuance of policy decision taken by Corporation. Aggrieved widow invoked jurisdiction of consumer fora filing a complaint and District Forum having overruled

-2-

objections raised on behalf of respondent Insurance Company directed them to pay Rs.5 lakhs with default clause to pay interest too @ 10% in case award was not honoured within stipulated period. In appeal that was filed by Insurance Company, State Commission having taken consideration of policy decision of Insurance Corporation for withdrawal from scheme and notice having been issued to petitioner and Insurance Company having paid sum of premium, while accepting appeal of Insurance Company unsuited petitioner. It is how that petitioner is in revision.

Learned counsel for petitioner would urge that as there is somewhat incoherency in defence of respondent throughout before fora below and this Commission, about date of cancellation of policy, defence of Insurance Company has to be struck on this score alone and my attention has been drawn to written statement submitted by respondent Insurance Corporation before District Forum in which there are variations about date on which they had withdrawn policy in question, as while at one place date of withdrawal of policy has been shown as 8.1.2002 at other it has been shown 9.2.2002. My attention has been drawn also to counter affidavit filed by respondent     Insurance  Corporation  in  which  averments  were  made  by Insurance

-3-

Corporation about remittance of cheque to petitioner on 11.2.2001 admittedly when withdrawal of policy was not even in question.

As for variation in dates when policy was withdrawn by Insurance Company, the State Commission had taken notice of endorsement made in the books of Insurance Corporation on 8.1.2002 when policy in question had been withdrawn by Insurance Company. Though failure of the Insurance Corporation for service of notice a week prior to cancellation of policy is also sought to be highlighted, in view of acknowledgement of service of notice made in unequivocal words in revision petition itself, this defene too was not available to the insured. Since cancellation of policy is shown to have been based on objective consideration, no eyebrows can be raised to the decision taken by the Corporation. State Commission rightly held that though refund of money was a subsequent event to the cancellation of contract, it was only due to procedural hardship.

Liability of Insurance Company, once a decision was taken for withdrawal of policy, was restricted to issuance of notice seven days preceding cancellation and payment of premium paid to the insured. State Commission has returned a finding on both issues adverse to petitioner.

-4-

Authority of withdrawal from policy cancellation is undisputedly within the domain of Insurance Company, which in pursuance of policy decision has taken such a decision and in that view of matter, I find that well reasoned order of State Commission does not suffer illegality or infirmity warranting interference in revision and that being so, revision petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed with no order as to costs.