No one appears for the petitioner. Even then, we have considered the grounds set up in the revision petition in order to challenge the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Both the fora below have come to a categorical finding that there was suppression of material facts by the insured at the time of revival of the policy so much so that though he was suffering from deadly disease of caner and was getting treatment from Acharya Tulsi Regional Cancer Treatment and Research Institute, Bikaner prior to ..2.. the making declaration in the proposal form for revival of the policy the said facts were deliberately concealed by the insured. In these circumstances, the order passed by the State Commission is eminently justified and is strictly in consonance with the legal position as settled by the apex court. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.