1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 11.01.2018 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1449 of 2014 arising out of the Order dated 21.11.2014 of the District Commission in complaint no. 02 of 2014.

2.       Repeatedly called out. 

No one appears.

3.       We have perused the record, including the Orders of the two fora below and the petition.

4.       Vide its letter dated 12.03.2013 the insurance company (the petitioner herein) repudiated a claim re medical treatment on ground of material concealment of pre-existing disease.

The District Commission after making its appraisal of the evidence arrived at the findings that in fact there was no material concealment of pre-existing disease. It directed the insurance company to pay the sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- within 45 days and in default thereof the awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of default. It also awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and harassment and Rs.2000/- towards costs.

We note that the District Commission passed its Order of 21.11.2014 on contest, after affording opportunity and duly hearing the insurance company. We also note that the District Commission has given speaking reasons for arriving at its findings.

The State Commission dismissed the insurance company’s appeal for non-prosecution. The Order dated 11.01.2018 of the State Commission is reproduced below for reference:

“Ld. Advocate for the sole Respondent is present.  Appellants are absent on repeated calls.  It is 12 noon now. This day is fixed for filing reply to the show cause.  However, Appellants do not take any steps in this regard. It goes to show that they are not interested to pursue their Appeal. Accordingly, this Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.  

“Let the LCR be sent back to the Ld. District Forum along with a copy of this order.”

A bare perusal shows that the learned advocate for the respondent complainant (the respondent herein) was present on the date of hearing.  However the appellant insurance company (the petitioner herein) was absent despite repeated calls till about 12.00 noon. It had also not undertaken steps as earlier ordered by the State Commission.

There appears no error or irregularity in the impugned Order of the State Commission whereby it has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

No good ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is readily visible. 

5.       Pertinently, though there is hardly any intricate issue involved in the State Commission’s Order under challenge, nobody is present on behalf of the insurance company to argue on its petition and to assist this Commission. 

6.       The revision petition stands dismissed.   

The amount if any deposited by the insurance company with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 02.05.2018 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the District Commission to the respondent complainant (Rajendra Nath Nag) by way of ‘payee’s account only’ demand draft as per the due procedure and after the due verification. The balance decretal amount shall be made good by the insurance company within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution,  for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.         

7.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.