IMPORTANT POINT
Physical disability must conform to policy conditions in order to make insured eligible to receive benefits.

S.K. Naik, Presiding Member— Petitioner in this revision petition was complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (for short the District Forum). His grievance against the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India was that even though he has taken a money back policy with accident benefit and had suffered disability during the currency of the insurance policy, his claim under the said policy has been rejected by the respondent-opposite party illegally. The respondent-opposite party had contested the complaint. On assessment of the evidence after hearing the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the complaint and, therefore, dismissed the same.

2. Aggrieved thereupon, the petitioner-complainant challenged the order dated 7th of May, 2005 of the District Forum in an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the State Commission). His appeal too has been dismissed by the State Commission.

3. Under the circumstances, feeling aggrieved once again that the complainant has filed this revision petition.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant had obtained an insurance policy with accident benefit for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent-opposite party. According to him, while engaged in the job of painting a household unit there was a sudden burst/blast resulting in the loss of both his hands. He, therefore, claimed the benefit under the terms of the accident benefit of the said insurance policy, which was rejected by the respondent-opposite party on the ground that he lost his limbs while handling explosives, which was an illegal act falling within the exclusion clause of the policy. Referring to the entries in the claim form, they claimed that the accident/incident occurred not while engaged in the job of painting but while handling explosives. Both the fora below have accepted the version of the respondent-opposite party and have dismissed the complaint.

5. This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 87 days, for which application for condonation of delay has been filed. The explanation offered in the said application states that the complainant being a disabled person depended on his local counsel to engage a counsel at Delhi, who failed to respond. Subsequently, he himself fell ill and was bedridden. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and was because of the forced circumstances.

6. Shri Ashok Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party has opposed the application and has submitted that in the absence of any affidavit with regard to the date of receipt of copy of the order of the State Commission dated 25th of August, 2008 after a period of two months, it cannot be said that he received the said order so late. He further contends that as per his own showing, the revision petition was prepared in February, 2009 while the same has been filed in the month of April, 2009. For this delay no explanation has been offered.

7. Having considered the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and on consideration of the fact that the complainant is a disabled person, the delay is condoned in the interest of justice.

8. On the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that both the fora below have given undue importance to a criminal case pending against the petitioner-complainant, alleging his involvement in illegal activities under the Explosive Act. There was no direct or indirect evidence to connect the petitioner-complainant with the above offence or to substantiate the contention that the complainant suffered disability due to the illegal activity. In the absence of any other evidence to connect or corroborate the alleged illegal act, the fora below could not conclusively hold that the complainant was guilty of the of