Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. He concedes regarding suppression of material facts as far as the insured’s health is concerned that he would press the issue of Dr. N.R. Barode, whose affidavit is not on the record. It is submitted that as far as the policy is concerned, the petitioners are liable to pay the amount of this particular policy only upto the date of maturity, which is 30.2.2005. He has referred to the conditions of two policies , which also mentions the sum assured payable under the stipulated period till the date of maturity. It is submitted that payment has been made of the other policies, as per the policy conditions. On an query put to him as to why this has not been brought to the notice of the district forum and State Commission as well, it is submitted that the issue did not arise at that stage because of the suppression of material fact. In my opinion, the grounds cannot be shifted from one to better as it is given to the revision petition. LIC being a public functionary institution should take all these grounds consistently from the beginning and not improve the grounds as it reaches to the stage of revision petition. This conduct costs unnecessarily delay and also confusion to the respondent, who is not aware that the petitioners would take such grounds at this late stage. The insured died in year 1998 and his widow has to pursue this matter for different grounds at different stages only because the petitioners did not bring it to the notice of the District Forum and State Commission earlier.

          Considering the fact that counsels representing the petitioner in the State Commission and District Forum never pointed out these policy conditions and the State Commission directed the payment under this policy. It is unfortunate that the widow has to continuously approach consumer fora for the lapses of the petitioner. In our view, there is no reason for me to interfere with the order of the State Commission and the petitioner to comply with the same within four weeks from today. It is also noted that this should not be considered as  a precedent in future.