Claim of the respondent/complainant was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the insured had committed suicide; that instead of taking the medicine for fever, the insured took some other medicine which resulted in deterioration of his health.  Aggrieved by repudiation of the claim, respondent, being the nominee of the insured, filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 9.9.2005 till realization in respect of first policy and Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from 9.9.2005 till realization along with costs of Rs.1,500/-.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent had committed suicide.  There is no direct evidence to show that the insured had taken the poisonous material with the intention to commit suicide.

          Otherwise also, the finding recorded by the fora below is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

          We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order.  Dismissed.