The petitioner being aggrieved of the dismissal of his appeal for non-prosecution vide impugned order dated 19.5.2017 passed by the State Commission, West Bengal has preferred this revision petition.

2.       Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner insurance company alleging that his wife was insured with the petitioner company. During the currency of the policy the insured died due to burn injuries. Insurance claim was submitted with the insurance company. The opposite party insurance company, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that the insured had committed suicide and no insurance claim was payable as per the insurance contract in a case of suicide.

3.       District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the consumer complaint and directed the petitioner insurance company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,39,241/- within 40 days from the date of the order besides compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. It was ordered that in the event of the opposite party failing to pay the amount to the complainant, the complainant would be entitled to execute the order and recover the money with interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount till the date of realization.

4.       The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal before the State Commission being first appeal No.A/637/2016. The appeal, however, came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.5.2017 due to non appearance on behalf of the appellant. The impugned order reads as under: -

“Order No.7

Ld. Advocate for the respondent No.1 is only present. Today is fixed for filing reply to show the cause. However, appellant is neither present nor take any steps. It appears that the appellant lastly appeared before this Commission on 11.1.2017. Since then, during 3 consecutive occasions he has remained absent. Seemingly, the appellant no longer interested to proceed with its appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.”

5.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absence of the appellant before the State Commission on 19.5.2017 was unintentional. Actually on the said date petitioner was under the impression that he would be represented by the advocate on record but the advocate on record could not appear, as he was indisposed and the State Commission refused to entertain the junior counsel, who was not on record. It is further submitted that even on the earlier date i.e. 17.4.2017 the counsel for the appellant due to traffic congestion got late and by the time he reached the State Commission, the matter had already been adjourned. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a strong case in appeal and if the impugned order is not set aside, the appellant shall suffer injustice.

6.       We do not find merit in the above contention firstly for the reason that no medical certificate has been filed to show that advocate on record was indisposed as a result of which he could not appear on hearing dated 19.5.2017. Even the affidavit of advocate on record or the junior counsel has not been filed to substantiate the aforesaid submission. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the appellant absented from the proceedings on three consecutive occasions which is clear indication of the fact that the petitioner/appellant was not vigilant in pursuing its appeal. Thus, we do not find fault with the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution more so because of the reason that as per the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Fora are under obligation to decide the consumer matters expeditiously.

7.       It is pertinent to note that the insurance claim of the respondent was repudiated on the ground that the insured has committed suicide. Counsel for the petitioner when asked to show the evidence that the insured committed suicide, has referred to the investigation report (page 71) which records as under: -

“Sequence of Death- During investigation it revealed that LA suffered deep burn injury (80%) on 1.12.2014 by igniting herself with kerosene oil over her body and put the body on flame at 1500 hrs.  after an altercation with family members. Family members initially taken to Tamluk Govt. Hospital and subsequently shifted to Peerless General Hospital, Kolkata on 2.12.2014 and after treatment expired over there on 7.12.2014 at 0740 am.”

8.       On reading of the above, we find that the conclusion of the investigator is based upon something revealed during investigation. However, there is no evidence to show as to what is the source of that revelation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has discharged its onus to prove that the insured had committed suicide. Thus, in our view, even the repudiation is not justified.

9.       In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the revision petition. Accordingly dismissed.