This revision petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission, in as much as the controversy centers around short question as to whether deceased Baburaj committed breach of the terms of insurance policy by consuming certain alcoholic preparation while driving his motor cycle at the time of alleged road accident.

2.      The District Consumer Forum awarded compensation by allowing the claim on account of double benefit policy.  The State Commission referred findings of the District Consumer Forum and the ground that the alleged road accident occurred on 27-09-2004.  Deceased Baburaj was found driving the motorcycle and there was finding of the Chemical Analyzer that the blood sample contained 57.50 mg. per 100 ml.  The presence of ethyl alcohol in the urine was found to be 115.0 mg. per 100 mls. of the samples.  It is on such a finding revealed from the certificate of the Chemical Analyzer that the State Commission dismissed the complaint.

3.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused  the relevant documents.   It  is  an  admitted  fact  that on 27-09-2004 deceased Baburaj was driving on his motorcycle and was allegedly hit by jeep vehicle bearing registration no. KL 11 L 5185.    The jeep vehicle was coming from the opposite direction when the alleged accident is said to have taken place.  The FIR was lodged by a friend of the deceased Baburaj, who was the pillion rider.  There is no dispute about the fact that the driver of the jeep vehicle is charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 279 and 304 (A) IPC.

4.          Learned counsel for the revision petitioners, who are the Legal Representatives of the deceased Baburaj and are original complainants, invited our attention to extract from Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by H.W.V. Cox Seventh Edition at page 940.  The tabular form pertaining to the facts of different concentrations of alcohol may be produced as follows:--

5.      As ag