In this revision challenge by the petitioner/complainant is to the order dated 26.10.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula allowing appeal against the order dated 4.5.2005 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the respondent / opposite party- LIC to pay the insured amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.3.2001 as also cost. We have heard Shri J.B. Mudgil on admission. It is not in dispute that an insurance policy for Rs. 2,90,000/- was purchased by Dr. Bhartander Rattan, husband of the petitioner from the respondent-Insurance Co. Life assured died on 22.12.2000. Claim made under the policy by the petitioner was repudiated by the Insurance Co. by the letter dated 5.9.2002 on ground of life assured having committed suicide by consuming poison within one year of the purchase of policy. As is manifest from the order dated 5.2.2010, time was sought by Shri Mudgil to file copies of leave applications, treatment papers and post-mortem examination report which the petitioner has now filed. Order of State Commission notices the pleas on which the complaint was contested by the Insurance Co. Insurance Co. alleged that the life assured was suffering from severe depression much before the purchase of policy which fact was suppressed in the proposal form by the life assured. Life assured had availed of medical leave from 11.3.1999 to 5.4.1999 and 24.5.1999 to 5.6.1999 and he had committed suicide by consuming insecticide on 22.12.2000. Documents filed pursuant to the order dated 5.2.2010 which are also referred in the State Commission’s order support the said plea raised by the Insurance Co. that life assured was on leave on medical ground during the said period, he having consumed insecticides which was the cause of death and he being under the treatment of Dr. Krishan Singhal for severe depression much before the purchase of the policy in question. In view of this evidence, we do not find illegality of jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.