1.       The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission dated 9.4.2019 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 21^st July, 2018 in CC/6/2016 was dismissed.

2.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard on merit at the stage of admission.

-2-

3.       Brief facts of the case are that the insurance policy in the name of Mukesh Nathabhai Varu (deceased) son of respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was taken on 16.9.2014 from the petitioner. During the period of validity of the insurance policy the deceased expired due to drowning in water on 20^th September, 2014. Since the death was not natural, an FIR as registered and police did the investigation. After concluding the investigation the police consigned the case observing that the death was due to suicide. The complainant’s claim was also rejected by the petitioner on this ground. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim the complainant filed its complaint before the District Forum. The plea taken by the petitioner was that since death was not a natural death but was a suicide, the repudiation of the claim was justified. They have relied upon the evidence of the police investigation heavily and argued that since the police investigation had concluded that the death was due to suicide, the repudiation was valid. No other evidence except the police record has been relied upon by the petitioner before the District Forum. District Forum considering all the evidences led by the parties before it and in detail discussing the arguments of the parties concluded as under:

“On behalf of complainant in written argument at Exhibit-26 submitter by her Ld. Advocate Shri Bhatt vehemently stated that the complainant at Exhibit-1 submitted on their behalf and in view of the details of documentary evidences produced

­-3-

in its report vide Mark-5/1 to 5/10 and mark-25/1 to 25/5 and Mark-27/1 to 27/5 the fact is clearly proved that the deceased son of complainant had taken policy at Mark-5/1 from opponent No.2 insurance company. The fact is also clearly proved that during the period of the said policy her son accidentally expired on Date: 20.9.2014 and the fact that the death happened due to drowning in water came to know during the investigation before police and the whole procedure in that regard one by the police. In view of all such details the claim form filled up and put before the opponent insurance company but by them making false interpretation of the condition of policy, this death is not accidental death but the case of suicide hence rejected the claim and thereafter though Mark-5/9 notice given to them, no response thereof given by them hence there is a proper reason to believe the fact stated by the complainant. He has vehemently stated that the defence which has been submitted by the opponent wherein they have taken the dispute on the basis of the police investigation that the son of complainant failed in standard twelve hence he felt guilt but on the basis of Mark-25/2 mark-sheet of 2013 of Gujarat Secondary and High Secondary Education Board, the son of the complainant after passing standard 12^th he continued with study and in view of the details of Mark-25/4 and 25/5 his study was continued at Saurashtra University and he never failed which clearly proved the prosecution on the basis of documentary evidence, in spite of that, the insurance company has believed this case as of suicide instead of accidental death but in this regard as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the opponent has not proved the fact of suicide hence vehemently stated to grant prayer as sought for.”

4.       This order was impugned before the State Commission and the similar contention has been raised that the death of the deceased was a suicidal and therefore  the  repudiation  was valid.  They  had  also  argued before the State

-4-

Commission that the post-mortem report wherein two injuries on both the wrists of the deceased being caused by blade has been shown, this circumstantial evidence clearly confirms that it was a suicidal death. It was also argued that the deceased did not have money for further studies that is why he had committed suicide which has transpired from the investigation and hence the death was not accidental death. These arguments were duly considered by the State Commission and the State Commission vide a detailed order rejected all the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and reach to the following conclusion:

“I have perused the judgment of Ld. Forum and documentary evidences. Deceased Mukesh Nathabhai Varu son of complainant has through opponent No.1 bank paying the premium with opponent No.2 insurance company availed the insurance and its period was from the Date: 16.9.2014 to Date: 15.9.2015 and for that there is no dispute between the parties. During the period of policy son of complainant expired due to drowning in water on Date: 20.9.2014 and in that regard necessary procedure carried out by the police. As per the case of complainant the death of deceased Mukesh happened accidentally and dispute raised by the opponent insurance company that first of all entry made in the station diary by the police wherein the deceased person failed in Standard 12^th so feeling guilty he had committed the suicide. The report which has been prepared by the police wherein the deceased person failed in Standard 12^th so feeling guilty fell down in the water which has been clearly noted in it, but on perusal of the documentary evidences produced by the complainant the mark-sheet of standard 12^th of the deceased has been produced and wherein it clearly appears that he became successful in standard 12^th taken in March, 2013 not only that he continued with the further study and also given

-5-

 examination of two semester mark-sheet of Bachelor of Arts and wherein also he became successful which have been produced. The dispute of the insurance company that the son of complainant failed in standard 12^th hence committed suicide which has not been proved. Moreover, on perusal of P.M. report there is clear noting that the deceased expired due to drowning in water. The insurance company has not produced any specific documentary evidence that the son of complainant failed in standard 12^th and hence he committed suicide. In the circumstances there is a reason to believe the contention of the complainant that the deceased has not committed the suicide, but expired due to drowning in water. Learned Forum has clearly stated in its judgment that in para 10 and 11 of judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission produced that (1) 2016 (3) CPR 253

Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. A.B. Singh wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has resolved as under in para No.11:

          “The OP should know that it was the OP and nobody else which is to carry the ball in proving that it was the case of suicide. Due to lack of evidence the factum of suicide hardly stands proved. It must be borne in mind that Courts decide the case on solid and unflappable evidence and not on presumption.”

5.       While impugning this order before us the same arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the police had concluded that the death was suicidal, the rejection of the claim was justified. It is argued that the police had reached to the finding on the basis of circumstantial evidence like post-mortem report and Panchnamas and closure of the investigation and other circumstantial evidence clearly shows that the death was

-6-

not accidental but was suicidal and these evidences have not been considered by the Fora below.

6.       We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner who had argued in detail on these points and carried us to the documents on record. From perusal of the orders of the Fora below it is apparent that both the Foras have duly considered the police report and discussed every aspect of it. Moreover, the documents- police station diary clearly states “…..So registered the accidental death for further investigation handed over to Head Constable S.N. Chawla and while making entry due to fail in Standard-12 feeling sad and cutting vain in the hand fell down in the water and expired committing suicide….” This observation in the police station diary had been considered in detail and this observation had been rejected by the Fora below on the basis of documents produced by the complainant, which were the mark sheets of the deceased wherein it has been shown that he had passed in 12^th Standard. Therefore, the finding on which the petitioner is relying stood falsified by the documentary evidence. The evidence of the police that death was suicidal is based on the motive of committing suicide due to failing in Standard-12 which motive stood falsified. There is no other evidence on record produce by the petitioner/insurer to show that there was any other reason for the deceased to commit suicide. There is no circumstantial evidence except that the body was

-7-

 recovered from a river and was also having blood stains and also that the railing was also having blood stain at the place from where the deceased might have allegedly jumped. It is not sufficient circumstantial evidence to conclude that it was the deceased who had jumped from the bridge in order to commit suicide. This circumstantial evidence can also lead to a conclusion that somebody pushed him against the railing and thereafter threw him into the river. This Commission cannot raise presumption of existence of a fact when there is no evidence to point it out. All the evidences which were produced before the Fora below had duly been considered and conclusion had been reached by the Fora below. Learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to point out any evidence which was on the record but had not been considered by the below. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-assess or re-appreciate evidence and reach to a conclusion. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654   has observed as under:

 “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of

-8-

the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

7.       Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 as under:

“The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting  aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

8.       In view of this we found no reason to issue notice to the respondent. The petition is dismissed in limine alongwtih all the pending applications.