PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The wife of the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with the OP/Respondent under T-Scheme which provides that if the depositor dies, then after his/her death the deposited amount along with interest as well as benefits under the scheme shall be paid to the nominee. The wife of the petitioner had deposited the said amount in the year 2002 and she died on 27.8.2005. Admittedly, the amount deposited was repaid by the OP/respondent on maturity, but the benefits under the scheme were not extended. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and gave directions regarding payment to be made under the said scheme. This order was challenged by the OP/respondent before the State Commission. The State Commission found that the wife of the complainant had suppressed vital information relating to her illness, which disentitles the depositor/nominee from receiving any benefit under the said scheme. The appeal was allowed and the benefits under the said scheme ordered by the District Forum were quashed. However, the State Commission had ordered 10% interest per annum for the period for which the amount remained with the OP/respondent to be paid by the OP/respondent on the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- deposited by the wife of the petitioner. This order is subject matter of challenge in this revision by the petitioner/complainant. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued before us that in medical record produced before the District Forum there are overwriting and OP/respondent have failed to prove that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from any illness and as such the petitioner is entitled to payment of benefits under the scheme. The State Commission has taken into consideration the medical record of MPM Hospital where the wife of the petitioner had taken treatment on 5.2.2005. The scheme is available for persons between the age of 15 and 65 years. The State Commission found that the terms and conditions of the scheme were duly understood which is clear from the signing of the application form by the depositor/petitioner. The State Commission has referred to Condition No.8(5) of the terms and conditions, which clearly stipulate that death benefits are not payable if the bond holder at the time of making request for scheme has already been suffering from some fatal diseases or incurable diseases for 3 years. The State Commission also found that from the application form duly filled shows that all terms & conditions were accepted. The State Commission relied upon the treatment taken by the wife of the petitioner in MPM Hospital, Jagdalpur which shows that the deceased depositor was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus for 8 years and other multiple diseases for 3 years. The State Commission also relied upon the certificate issued by Dr. Vinay Kacca regarding the cause of death of the deceased, which states that the deceased was admitted as a case of Diabetes Mellitus, Lung Diseases Chronic Renal Failure and Hypothyroidism. There is no doubt that there is some overwriting in the treatment record of MPM Hospital, Jagdalpur dated 5.2.2005. However, in the case of DM below the overwriting the figure is 6 and against Hypothyroid the figure below 3 is 2. In case of Mixtard, the figure is 3 years. In our opinion, it is a clear case of suppression of vital information by the depositor/petitioner, which disentitles the petitioner for any benefit under the said scheme. The State Commission has, therefore, rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner/complainant for any benefit under the said scheme. However, the State Commission has awarded 10% interest on the amount deposited with the respondent/OP for the period, which the amount was retained by the OP/respondent till the same was paid to the petitioner. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the revision and the revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.