JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 27.10.09 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in S.C. Case no. FA/2009/211. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/complainant against the order dated 24.04.09 passed by the District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiguna in consumer complaint no. 52/06 whereby the District Forum had dismissed the complaint. The State Commission while allowing the appeal has directed the petitioner – LIC to pay the insurance amount under the insurance policy within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of the order with the stipulation that in case of default, ..2.. it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. The State Commission has also awarded a cost of Rs.1,000/- in favour of the complainant. 2. The consumer dispute raised in the complaint before the District Forum related to the non-settlement/unjustified repudiation of insurance claim made by a certain Subho Debnath in respect of an insurance policy of his wife, namely, Smt. Tagari Debnath taken by her in the sum of Rs.40,000/- on 10.12.03. The said insured had died on 19.01.04 due to extensive burn injuries to the extent of 95%. The LIC repudiated the claim on the strength of condition no. 5 of the policy entertaining suspicion about the deceased insured having committed suicide. Condition No. 5 of the policy reads as under:- “The policy shall be void if the life assured commits suicide (whether sane or insane at the time) at any time on or after the date on which the risk under the policy has commenced but before the expiry of one year from the date of this policy and the Corporation will not entertain any claim by virtue of this policy except to the extent of a third party’s bonafide beneficial interest acquired in the policy for valuable consideration of which notice has been given in writing to the office to which premiums under this policy were paid last, at least one calender month prior to death.” 3. The District Forum, going by the plea of the LIC and the material placed on record, more particularly the final report submitted ..3.. by the police in the case as also the opinion of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, upheld the repudiation of the insurance claim as justified and consequently dismissed the complaint. In appeal, the State Commission, going by the material placed on record, by discarding the report of the police reached a different conclusion and held that the LIC has failed to establish by means of cogent evidence that the deceased, Smt. Tagari Debnath had committed suicide and was justified in repudiating the claim. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and insurance company was directed to make the payment of the insurance amount. 4. Mr. Anoop K. Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the finding recorded by the State Commission is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and the material brought on record. In this context, he has invited our attention to the opinion of the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination and was also examined as witness before the District Forum. In our view, the opinion given by the said doctor that “such type of burnt injury might have been caused by suicide” is quite speculative and based on surmises rather ..4.. than on any firm opinion of Forensic expert. The case as put forth before the police was that the insured had caught fire accidentally while she was boiling milk on a burner. No contrary evidence was brought on record through any witness who had seen the lady setting herself to fire. In our view, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the State Commission was fully justified in taking the view it has taken. In any case the amount of insurance involved was only Rs.40,000/- and the LIC was not suitably advised to approach this Commission by filing the revision petition. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed without any orders as to costs.