1. twelve days delay in filing the present petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 26th April, 2012 passed by the Haryana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (For the short tate Commission in First Appeal No. 1213/2010, the original complainant in the complaint has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the LIC of India against the order dated 8th July, 2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sonepat, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner herein was accepted and the opposite party LIC of India was directed to make the payment of the assured amount under the policy with all other consequential benefits in respect of the policy of his father Shri Subhash along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment suffered by him. In appeal the State Commission has reversed the said findings and order of the District Forum by holding that the repudiation of the claim by the LIC of India was justified in as much as the life assured had taken the policy by suppressing the material facts about the state of his health in as much as in the proposal submitted by the life assured, he concealed the fact of his suffering from Adenocarcinoma from 2008 for which disease, he had received the treatment/Chemotherapy at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Rohini, New Delhi first from July to August, 2008 and thereafter in the month of February, 2009 i.e. prior to his taking the policy on 04-03-2009. 3. The State Commission accordingly dismissed the complaint and hence, this petition. 4. We have heard Mr. Naresh Kr. Aggarwal, representing the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He would assail the impugned order as not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material produced on record and it being not in consonance with the legal position established by the Supreme Court. The basis of his submissions firstly is that the life assured has undergone a medical check-up at the hands of the medical referee of the LIC of India before the policy was taken by him and therefore, the LIC cannot be allowed to raise the plea about the suppression of material facts by the life assured. In any case his submission is that the State Commission has erred reliance in placing upon the record of the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Rohini, New Delhi in as much as the original record was not produced and the doctors who treated the life assured were neither examined nor their affidavit was filed. He submits that the photocopies of the treatment pertaining to the life assured Shri Subhash Chander could not be relied and acted on its face value unless some affidavit of the doctors had been filed. We must reject both these contentions because the insurance contract is based on utmost faith and if one party to the insurance contract make a false/incorrect report or conceal certain material facts at the time of making the proposal for taking the insurance policy, the same would be seen as a non-bonafide or lack of bonafide and in turn can be labelled as fraudulent representation. The factum about the life assured suffering from a particular disease rather a deadly disease like cancer was within the special knowledge of the life assured which he will be deemed to have concealed only with a view that the proposal for insurance is accepted and the nominee or his dependant gets the benefit from it. Insured died within three months of taking the policy and this circumstance along with material brought on record does not leave any doubt of any kind that the life assured had concealed the correct status of his health at the time of taking the policy. The law on the subject is very clear and Supreme Court in the case of P.C. Chacko & Anr. Vs. Chairman, LIC of India (2008) 1 SCC 321 and later in the case of atwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co.[(2009) 8 SCC 316] has laid down that any suppression of material fact by the life assured would disentitle the claimant/nominee from making insurance claim. 5. Having considered the matter, we do not see any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order which warrants interference of this Commission. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. The counsel for the petitioner states that the amount of insurance premium by the LIC of India to the complainant has already been refunded.