Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the fora below i.e. the District Consumer Forum, Osmanabad and Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, circuit Bench at Aurangabad vide orders dated 19.10.2005 and 9.11.2009, respectively, the Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed the present petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The consumer dispute raised before the District Forum was in regard to the non-settlement of the insurance claim arising out of an insurance policy titled as ‘Sanjeevani Money Back Policy’ obtained by a certain Shivaji Patekar, husband of complainant No. 1 and father of complainants No. 2 and 3, in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh for the period from 16.10.2000 to till 28.10.2015, the insured having died on 1.4.2003. The claim was repudiated and complaint was resisted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India primarily on the -3- ground that the deceased insured at the time of taking the insurance policy has suppressed certain material facts, which he was bound to disclose in the proposal form. The material fact which the deceased is stated to have concealed was that he was an alcohol addict had received the treatment at Government Medical Hospital, Osmanabad on several occasions for the said addiction. Though certain record of Government Medical Hospital, Osmanabad as also the record of the employer of the deceased was produced in order to show that the deceased insured was suffering from a certain addiction and had received the treatment and was frequently absenting from his duty. Dr. Liyaqat Maheboob Mujawar was also examined to prove this fact but the fora below have lightly brushed aside the said record and the testimony of the said doctor by observing that the affidavit of the doctor was not produced and in any case the doctor had not deposed that any treatment was given to the deceased during the period he remained admitted in the Government Hospital, Osmanabad and accordingly allowed the complaint and passed the order directing the petitioner- -4- Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay the insurance amount with interest @9% per annum. We have heard Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner-Life Insurance Corporation of India and Mr. A. N. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the respondents and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. Learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India would assail the impugned order, primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the respective pleas, evidence and the material produced on record, in particular, the evidence which was led on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in order to establish the factum of the deceased-insured being an alcohol addict received the treatment on several occasions. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent support the order and states that there has been no concealment of any material which would disentitle the respondents from giving of the benefit under the policy. On a consideration of the respective pleas, we are of the view that the matter has not received the kind of consideration, which was -5- required at the hands of the fora below. The District Consumer Forum observed that the testimony does not support the case of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Besides, there is no reference of other material about the absence/leave of the deceased on several occasions between 1996 to 1998. This important piece of evidence has been totally overlooked by the District Forum. On request of Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India that the Life Insurance Corporation of India is in a position to lead evidence to establish its case, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the complaint should be remitted back to the District Forum for deciding the question afresh on the basis of existing evidence and further evidence, if any, which may be led by the parties. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the complaint is remitted back to the District Consumer Forum, Osmanabad to decide the complaint afresh and if any prayer is made on behalf of Life Insurance Corporation of India to produce the evidence, the same shall be allowed and the evidence taken on record. The complaint shall be answered expeditiously within a -6- period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before the District Consumer Forum. The parties are directed to appear before the District Consumer Forum, Osmanabad on 18.11.2010 to receive further directions in the matter. Vide order dated 23.09.2010 by this Commission, cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes to deposit the said cost in this Commission within one week.