This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana dated 28.03.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner insurance company and confirmed the order of the District Forum, which reads as under:- Ps have themselves reproduced the orders dated 19.01.2009 vide which the OPs were proceeded against exparte which is reproduced herein:- dvocates are on strike. Notice was sent to OP no.1 through process server of this Forum were duly received by OP no.1. Notice to OP no.2 was sent through regd. Post and acknowledgement duly stamped received back. But despite service none has come present before this forum on behalf of OP no.1 and 2. It is already 3.10 PM. Further wait is not justified. Accordingly OP no.1 and 2 stand proceeded exparte. Now the case is adjourned for 6.3.2009 for exparte evidence. Dated: 19.1.2009 sd/- Member sd/- President. The order of District Forum is clear that both the OPs were duly served and non-appearing despite clear service, there was no option with the District Forum but to proceed exparte and proceed further to dispose of the complaint. It is not the case of OPs that they were not properly served, nor it is their case that there was sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the date fixed. OPs remained contended after service and it is only after the award being passed that they woke up to challenge the same in appeal. Once the order proceeding exparte has attained finality and no illegality could be found in the said order, the evidence produced on the file proving the case of complainant holding the OPs to be deficient in service, there was no reason to dismiss the complaint, thus the order allowing complaint was certainly justified. No ground to interfere in the impugned order. 2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondents being legal heirs of the insured Sulender @ Surender filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner company claiming that Sulender @ Surender had taken Bajaj Allianz Insurance policy from the petitioner/OP with death benefit for the sum of Rs.4,08,000/-. The policy commenced from 04.02.2008. The life insured died on 13.02.2008 after suffering pain in stomach. Insurance claim was lodged by the respondents. However, the petitioner/OP did not grant the claim. It is the case of the respondents/complainants that a legal notice dated 02.08.2008 was sent to the petitioner/OP but no reply was received. Claiming this to be deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/OP, the consumer complaint was filed. 3. Notice of the consumer complaint was issued to the petitioner/OP. Despite of service of notice, the petitioner/OP failed to put in appearance before the District Forum. They were, therefore, proceeded exparte and the District Forum on the basis of exparte evidence produced by the complainants allowed the complaint and directed as above. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Commission, the State Commission dismissed the appeal with following observations:- The order of District Forum is clear that both the OPs were duly served and non-appearing despite clear service, there was no option with the District Forum but to proceed exparte and proceed further to dispose of the complaint. It is not the case of OPs that they were not properly served, nor it is their case that there was sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the date fixed. OPs remained contended after service and it is only after the award being passed that they woke up to challenge the same in appeal. Once the order proceeding exparte has attained finality and no illegality could be found in the said order, the evidence produced on the file proving the case of complainant holding the OPs to be deficient in service, there was no reason to dismiss the complaint, thus the order allowing complaint was certainly justified. No ground to interfere in the impugned order. 5. Shri Pankul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the orders of the fora below are not sustainable for the reason that both the foras below have failed to appreciate that respondents complainants filed the consumer complaint without even filing the death claim in respect of the insured. He further contended that since the death of the insured took place within ten days of obtaining the insurance policy, the claim was required to be investigated. Thus, the complaint ought to have been dismissed as pre mature. It is also argued that District Forum has committed a grave error in proceeding against the petitioners ignoring the fact that the petitioners were not served with the notice of the complaint. Otherwise also, on 19.01.2009 advocates were on strike. Therefore, the District Forum ought not have proceeded ex parte against the petitioners. 6. We are not convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. On perusal of record we find that respondent proved on record notice dated 02.08.2008 sent to the petitioners alongwith its postal receipt and the AD card. On perusal of the aforesaid notice, it transpires that intimation regarding the death of the insured was sent to the insurance company. Therefore, it cannot be said that consumer complaint which was filed on 08.09.2008 was pre mature. 7. As regards second limb of the argument, it would be useful to have a look on order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the District Forum. The order is reproduced thus: dvocates are on strike. Notice was sent to OP no.1 through process server of this Forum were duly received by OP no.1. Notice to OP no.2 was sent through regd. Post and acknowledgement duly stamped received back. But despite service none has come present before this forum on behalf of OP no.1 and 2. It is already 3.10 PM. Further wait is not justified. Accordingly OP no.1 and 2 stand proceeded exparte. Now the case is adjourned for 6.3.2009 for exparte evidence. 8. On reading of the above, it is evident that the petitioners were served with the notice of the consumer complaint though the advocates were on strike. The District Forum waited for the appearance of the petitioners till 3.10 p.m. before proceeding ex parte against them. The State Commission has already held that strike by the lawyers is illegal. Therefore, the strike of the lawyers as a ground of non-appearance is not justified. Thus, in our view, the District Forum has rightly proceeded against the petitioner. 9. The orders of the District Forum as also the State Commission are well reasoned. We do not find any reason to interfere with the orders in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed. 10. Petitioners are directed to comply with the impugned order within one month failing which respondents shall be at liberty to execute the order.