ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE RESPONDENT IS A WIDOW OF ONE LAGAMA. LAGAMA DIED ON 30-12-1995 AT BELGAUM. THE CERTIFICATE OF HOSPITAL TREATMENT SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION THE NATURE OF LAGAMAS COMPLAINT WAS "CONSUMPTION OF METACIN" AND THE DIAGNOSIS AT THE TIME HE ARRIVED AT THE HOSPITAL WAS ORGANO PHOSPHOROUS POISONING. THE MEDICAL ATTENDANTS CERTIFICATE WHICH IS SIGNED BY THE SENIOR SPECIALIST OF THE HOSPITAL AT BELGAUM ALSO STATES THAT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF DEATH WAS ORGANO PHOSPHOROUS POISONING. THE CERTIFICATE ALSO SHOWS THAT AN INQUEST OR FORMAL INQUIRY WAS HELD REGARDING THE DEATH OF LAGAMA AND THE FINDING WAS "ORGANO PHOSPHOROUS POISONING". 3. LAGAMA HAD INSURED HIS LIFE UNDER THREE INSURANCE POLICIES WITH THE APPELLANT. AFTER HIS DEATH LAGAMAS WIDOW FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM, BELGAUM ALLEGING DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE BECAUSE LIC HAD MADE "UNDUE INQUIRIES AND HAD REPUDIATED THE CLAIM". 4. THE DISTRICT FORUM DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT HOLDING THAT APART FROM THE VARIOUS MEDICAL REPORTS AND CERTIFICATES, IN THE CLAIM PETITION ITSELF THE RESPONDENT HAD STATED THAT THE INSURED HAD COMMITTED SUICIDE. THE CASE-SHEET ALSO REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF THE DECEASEDS RELATIONS THAT LAGAMA HAD BEEN TO HIS FATHER-IN-LAWS HOUSE TO BRING BACK HIS WIFE BUT THE IN-LAWS DID NOT SEND HIS WIFE AND THAT WAS THE REASON WHY HE HAD CONSUMED POISON. 5. THE RESPONDENT IMPUGNED THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT FORUM BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION. WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL THE STATE COMMISSION SAID THAT THE VARIOUS REPORTS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS NOBODY HAD SAID THAT THE INSURED HAD CONSUMED POISON VOLUNTARILY. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD PAY THE BENEFITS UNDER THE POLICIES TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON TO THE RESPONDENT. 6. THE APPELLANT FILED A REVISIONAL APPLICATION BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION REJECTED THE PETITION. ALTHOUGH IT WAS FOUND THAT IT WAS AN "UNDISPUTED CASE OF THE DECEASED POLICY-HOLDER DYING ON ACCOUNT OF ORGANO PHOSPHOROUS POISONING", IT WAS HELD THAT THE STATE COMMISSION WAS RIGHT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE INSURED HAD TAKEN THE POISONOUS SUBSTANCE VOLUNTARILY. 7. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE REASONING OF EITHER THE STATE COMMISSION OR THE NATIONAL COMMISSION. AS RECORDED BY THE DISTRICT FORUM, THE COMPLAINANT HAD HERSELF COME FORWARD WITH THE CASE THAT THE DECEASED HAD COMMITTED SUICIDE BY CONSUMING POISON. 7. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE REASONING OF EITHER THE STATE COMMISSION OR THE NATIONAL COMMISSION. AS RECORDED BY THE DISTRICT FORUM, THE COMPLAINANT HAD HERSELF COME FORWARD WITH THE CASE THAT THE DECEASED HAD COMMITTED SUICIDE BY CONSUMING POISON. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE THE SEVERAL MEDICAL CERTIFICATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE INQUEST PANCHNAMA OF THE POLICE AUTHORITIES WHICH RECORDS THAT THE DECEASED HAD COMMITTED SUICIDE AND NO FOUL PLAY WAS SUSPECTED. 8. SINCE IT WAS NOBODYS CASE AT ANY STAGE EITHER THAT THE DECEASED HAD TAKEN THE POISON ACCIDENTALLY OR BEEN ADMINISTERED POISON NOR HAD THE RESPONDENT LED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH A PLEA, IT WAS NOT FOR THE STATE COMMISSION OR THE NATIONAL COMMISSION TO MAKE OUT SUCH A CASE FOR THE COMPLAINANT. 9. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL B COMMISSION AS WELL AS THAT OF THE STATE COMMISSION AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT FORUM. WHILE DOING SO, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ALLOW THE RESPONDENT THE COST OF LITIGATION ASSESSED AT RS 25,000. 10. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF.