Heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has brought it to our notice that the letter of endorsement effected on 19.1.2005 and the policy endorsement on 10.12.05 and relevant policy particulars and the record of the Insurance Company itself has been noted in this particular letter.  When this document is being shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that by mistake in computerization, this date has been noted and should not be taken into consideration. In my opinion, the petitioners have taken extra premium, being fully aware of increased policy amount and also extended the date till 10.12.2005 on the request of the bank as noted by the State Commission. There is no reason for me to interfere with the order of the State Commission, which is based on the facts. Hence, the revision petition dismissed.