The revision petitioner, State Bank of India, has challenged the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, passed in appeal number 1994/2006. The six respondents in the present proceedings, are the wife and five children of one Mahadev Ram Chandor. 2. As per the records of this case, Mahadev had obtained a Kissan Credit Card from the Agriculture Development Branch of SBI. This credit card offered benefit of a scheme of personal accident insurance of Rs.50,000 to the holder if he was above the age of 70 years and had died or become permanently disabled in any accident. After his death on 26.11.2004, the respondents/complainants claimed the insurance benefit but the appellant Bank did not settle the claim. Hence, a consumer complainant was made to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar on 10.2.2006. The District Forum came to a conclusion that the claim is not admissible as – “a. information about the death of Mahadev was not given within the prescribed period of 30 days, and b. no evidence was produced to establish that he had died in an accident.” 3. In appeal against the above order, the State Commission held that there is no evidence on record to show that the limitation of 30 days was ever communicated by the OP/Bank to the complainants. Even in their reply of 10.5.2006, the Bank had not raised this issue. Therefore, rejection of the claim on this ground was considered improper. As for the condition of death being due to accident or unnatural cause, the State Commission observed that the Kissan Passbook issued by the Bank read “Insurance upto Rs 50,000 in the event of death or accident.” It however, noted that the proforma for the Personal Accident Insurance Scheme of the OP/Bank read— “In the event of death or complete disability of any Kissan Credit Card holder due to any unnatural cause or accident, who is below the age of 70 years, he would be entitled to the claim of Rs.50,000 under this scheme.” 4. The State Commission has held that reference to accident relates only to disability and not to death. Therefore, rejection of the insurance claim on the ground of death being natural and not due to accident, was held to be bad. The State Commission accordingly, disagreed with the District Forum and allowed the claim. 5. We may at this stage state that the interpretation put by the State Commission on the condition recorded in the proforma for personal Insurance scheme is not correct since in order to claim the insurance amount in the event of death the death, should be due to unnatural cause or accident. Death due to natural cause could not be covered thereunder. 6. We have perused the records and heard the counsels for the two parties. Before considering the matter on merits, the delay of 35 days in filing this revision petition has been considered and condoned. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainants, has produced the Death Certificate of deceased Mahadev, issued by the Births and Deaths Registration Authority. The certificate is in a printed format showing the date and place of death but not the cause of death. This certificate therefore offers no help on the question whether his death was caused by any accident or under unnatural circumstances or was a natural death. 8. According to the revision petition, the State Commission wrongly relied upon the entry in the Passbook of the deceased which read “Insurance of Rs.50,000 in case of death or accident” when the scheme itself was of personal accident insurance. This would have been a very valid argument provided the revision petitioner/OP had produced any evidence before the fora below to show that the terms of the insurance scheme had been communicated to the holder of the Passbook. On the contrary, the Complaint Petition before the District Forum shows that the complainants were not even informed about the insurance policy or the insurance company concerned with it. The written response of the Bank/OP does not answer, even indirectly, the question whether the deceased was in any manner informed about the nature and conditions of the relevant insurance scheme. In our view, as the State Bank of India had accepted the insurance scheme with conditions, it also carried the obligation to bring them to the notice of its customers, as the insurance policy was taken for their protection. The customer cannot be held liable for non-observance of conditions, which were never brought to his notice. 9. For the reasons discussed above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. The amount of Rs.36647 deposited by the revision petitioner in District Forum, Alwar shall be released to the respondent/complainants. The balance of the decretal amount shall be paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent/complainants within three months. In case of any delay in such payment, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum to be paid to the respondent/complainants. | 
