Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the Commission). The Commission upset the order of the State Commission and held that the appellant was liable to pay to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the complaint.
(3.) Factual position in a nutshell is essentially as follows: Smt. Lalitha Devi Patel wife of the complainant had obtained a Janata Personal Accident Policy for a sum of Rs. 5 lakh in August, 1998, for which a premium was paid and accepted and the policy was issued. The insured died on account of an accident by way of falling into a well and drowning. FIR was lodged, autopsy was performed and appellant was informed. Various documents were also furnished claiming payment in spite of the policy. When the appellant Company did not settle the claim, a complaint came to be filed before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short the State Commission) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint leaving the complainant to take appropriate proceeding for establishing his claim and for seeking the reliefs in the court of competent jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this order, appeal was filed before the Commission. ;