O R D E R (ORAL)

        Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the impugned order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), by which the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum has been upheld.  Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the insured had not disclosed the previous insurance policies taken by him, while filling up the proposal form and therefore, the Petitioners were well within their right to repudiate the claim of the deceased.  The submission has no force for the simple reason that the State Commission has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the Petitioners did not bring on record any document or any provision regarding the effect of the non-disclosure of the earlier policies already taken by the deceased and what is its effect.  For ready reference, para-4 of the impugned order, which deals with the contentions raised by the Petitioners is reproduced below :

“Against the impugned order dated 23.5.2016, the OPs/appellants have come up in appeal before us reiterating their same pleas as raised before the learned District Forum.  We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, from the perusal whereof it is evident that in the insurance policy, there was no terms and conditions according to which the insured was duty bound to disclose any Insurance Policy previously taken by him.  Moreover, the OPs have also not produced before the District Forum any agreement between the parties or documents containing such terms and conditions, according to which the Insurance Policy could not be issued in his favour.  Infact, the OPs have also not produced any documentary evidence disclosing the relevant data i.e. facts and figures and other particulars regarding the Insurance Policies taken by the insured as alleged by the OPs.  In the absence of any such documentary evidence, the OPs could not plead any breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy nor could they blame the insured about the non disclosure or suppression of any material facts.  Consequently, we fully agree and endorse the detailed and well reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.”

        From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission had rightly dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein for the simple reason that no documentary evidence was brought on record regarding the mandatory condition of disclosure of the earlier Insurance Policies taken by the insured and what is its effect and whether the Petitioners can decline issuance of fresh Insurance Policy.    We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant any interference in exercise of our Revisional jurisdiction.

        Revision Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.