Complainant/petitioner’s husband had taken a life insurance policy from the respondent for a sum of Rs.1 Lac in the year 2003.  He paid 2/3 premiums during his lifetime.  Insured died on 11.8.2004.  Petitioner being the nominee submitted her claim with the insurance company which repudiated the same on the ground that the deceased was suffering from coronary artery disease since 2001.  Apart from that he was   also  suffering   from  Hypertension  and Diabetes, but all these facts were not disclosed by him while taking

-2-

the policy.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 17.9.2009, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  The State Commission in para 6, 7 and 8 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that the insured had suppressed the material facts while taking the policy.  The findings recorded by the fora below are based on documentary evidence.  Discharge Summary as well as the case history indicates that the insured was suffering from coronary artery disease since 2001, which the insured had failed to disclose while taking the policy.  Finding recorded by the fora below is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisinal jurisdiction. 

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

-3-

We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.