ORDER

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the State Commission’s Order dated 29.01.2016 in appeal no. 473 of 2015 arising out of the District Commission’s Order dated 24.08.2015 in complaint no. 185 of 2015.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record including inter alia the District Commission’s Order dated 24.08.2015, the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 29.01.2016 and the petition.

3. The dispute relates to an accidental group insurance claim.

The petitioner-complainant’s case was that his father had opened an account with the respondent-district cooperative central bank so as to avail benefits of various schemes of the government. As per instructions of the government the bank deducted Rs. 100/- every year from his father’s bank account as premium for accidental group insurance of Rs. 5 lakh. The annual premium for the year 2011-2012 was however not deducted by the bank though as per instructions of the government the same should have been deducted and remitted to the insurance company. His father died on 03.06.2012 due to accidental collapse of a wall at home. His insurance claim was rejected by the bank on ground that the premium of Rs. 100/- was not deducted in 2011-2012 and as such no group insurance policy was taken.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 24.08.2015 accepted the complaint and ordered the bank to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakh within one month of its Order, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the Order, as also to pay compensation of Rs. 50 thousand and cost of litigation of Rs. 10 thousand.

The bank appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 29.01.2016 accepted the appeal and set aside the Order of the District Commission.

4. For ready reference extracts of the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below:

10. After the complete perusal of the submitted the complaint the question to be considered arises that whether by not collecting the premium amount form the respondent / complainant’s Late father Harihar Singh’s saving account no. 614 and for the purpose of above saving account by not making the payment insurance claim the appellants / opposite parties have committed the act of deficiency in service of the respondent / complainant? The solution to the considered points is being done as below.

11. The respondent / complainant has submitted the argument that from the account of his father every year an amount of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) was deducted has accident insurance without informing / knowledge of the father of respondent / complainant. In support of this argument the respondent / complainant has not submitted any documented evidence. In such situation the above argument of the respondent / complainant that in the previous year the insurance premium amount has been deducted, is not acceptable.

12. During the last argument the respondent / complainant was again and again giving the argument that according to the direction of the government Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) was to be deducted from his father’s savings account and was to be sent to the insurance company and insurance cover was to be done but the order of the government that the respondent / complainant is talking about has not submitted in the complaint. Therefore this argument of the respondent / complainant is not eligible to be accepted.

13. The submitted document by the respondent / complainant Annexure –P4 is a letter no. 1309 dated 09/07/2013 by Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Durg, (C.G.) Nodal office Bemetara on its perusal it gets clear that in the year 2011-2012 under Chhirha Samiti no accidental insurance was done for any savings account holder and when the premium amount was not deducted at all then it is not possible to make the payment of insurance claim. No ground is avail