Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’). The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the Postal Life Insurance against an order dated 30.01.1999 passed by the District -2- Consumer Forum by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the opposite party-insurance company was directed to pay the claim amount under the policy with interest @12% per annum with cost of Rs.1,000/-. The State Commission reversed the said finding of the District Consumer Forum primarily on the basis of the record of treatment of the life assured from 22.5.1990 to 10.04.1991 produced on record. In the proposal form submitted for obtaining the insurance, the life assured had made a false declaration to the effect that he was not suffering from any disease whatsoever much less from the pulmonary tuberculoses. The policy was obtained in July 1990 i.e. after the life assured was diagnosed as a case of pulmonary tuberculoses and had started taking treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the said finding and order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that no cogent proof about the life assured suffering from pulmonary tuberculoses and having received the treatment before the date of making the proposal form, was filed. In this regard, he submits that the doctor’s certificate was not produced in original and the doctor was not examined. In our view, this is only a technical/procedural -3- objection based on the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, which we must reject on the face of the facts and circumstances of the case and the attenuating circumstances brought on record. We see no illegality, material irregularity or much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which warrants interference of this Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. | 
