JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. -2- 2. Shri Balraj obtained life insurance policy from Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd./opposite parties-respondents on 25.2.2010. Unfortunately, Shri Balraj passed away on 19.4.2010. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the insurance company that life assured was chronic alcoholic and had taken the treatment for the slip disc prior to the obtaining insurance policy. The life assured was having history of alcoholic rehabilitation and had under treatment for slip disc as is evident from the certificate 6.11.2008 issued by President Naya Jiwan Nasha Mukti Avam, Punarvas Samiti (Regd.). It also came to light that the life assured had also availed leave from 26.11.2009 to 6.12.2009 on medical grounds from its employer i.e. Forest Department. Copy of the leave application dated 26.11.2009 is annexure A-3. This fact was not disclosed by the life assured in the proposal form. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company. Therefore, a complaint was filed by the nominee before the District Forum. 3. The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed that all the insurance claims be paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by that order, the opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint. -3- 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner points out that the proof that the deceased was alcoholic does not stand proved because the affidavit of President of Naya Jiwan Nasha Mukti Avam, Punarvas, did not see the light of the day. He explained that in absence of the affidavit, the certificate carries no value. 5. We see no force in his argument. The certificate carries cogent and convincing value. The complainant had got the liberty to rebut the evidence. He should have given an affidavit to the effect that the certificate issued by the President is forged or manipulated one. It stands proved that the deceased was having the above said ailments. 6. The second submission made by learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner was that Balraj was a minor. He was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. He was innocent and therefore, the claim should be permitted. 7. All these arguments are devoid of force. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The State Commission has correctly placed reliance on the authorities reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Sunita Bens Shah, decided by the National Commission on -4- 17.3.2009, P. C. Chacko & Anr. Vs. Chairman, LIC of India (2008) 1 SCC 321 and Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India Assurance Co. (2009) 8 SCC 316. It is well settled that contract of insurance policy is based on the doctrine of uberrima fides i.e. utmost good faith in the conduct of the life insured. The Commission cannot support a liar. The revision petition is without merits, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
