Complainant/respondent’s husband obtained a pension policy from the petitioner insurance company. Insurance policy got lapsed because the ECS of the opp.party was not functional at all. Policy was later on got revived in February 2008 on payment of the due premium. Insured died on 23.3.2008. Complainant, being the nominee, filed claim with the petitioner insurance company, which sent a cheque of Rs.11,853.40, as the value of the units of the deceased insured, which was not encashed by the respondent. She sent back the cheque to the petitioner claiming the death benefit under Clause 2.1 of the policy. Petitioner again sent the cheque of Rs.11,853.40 to the respondent. Being aggrieved, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the respondent to pay Rs.1 lakh towards death benefit; compensation of Rs.50,000/- with appropriate costs. District Forum came to the conclusion that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition. Petitioner insurance company was directed to refund the full amount of premium received from the insured till 31.1.2008 along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.500/-. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed. On a contention raised by the petitioner, award of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation was not justified keeping in view the fact that fora below did not find any deficiency on the part of the petitioner, limited notice was issued to the respondent regarding the amount of compensation. Fora below have recorded a finding that the policy was lying in a lapsed condition; that the respondent was not entitled to the insured sum. However, fora below directed the petitioner to refund the premium amount as the petitioner itself had offered to refund the premium amount to the respondent. No deficiency was found on the part of the petitioner. In the absence of any finding regarding deficiency on the part of the petitioner, fora below have erred in directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. There is clearly an illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the fora below. For the reasons stated above, direction issued by the fora below to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation is set aside. Rest of the order is upheld. Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. | 
