None present for the petitioner even though the petitioner is served and A.D. Card is kept in Part II file. We have gone through the entire record. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The revision has been filed challenging concurrent findings of two Fora below. The Petitioner/Complainant had taken a policy in the name of his daughter Kumari Sripada Syarraladevi on 20.2.2004 after paying one time premium. The insurance policy was for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The daughter of the Petitioner/Complainant committed suicide on 21.6.2004. The police had registered a case namely Crime No. 78/2004 and conducted inquest and got post-mortem examination done, which indicated that she had committed suicide. The complaint of the Petitioner for payment of insurance amount or at least refund of one time premium on account of death of the daughter of the Petitioner was rejected by the District Forum. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner was neither entitled to the sum assured nor return of the premium inasmuch as the daughter of the petitioner had committed suicide within one year of the issue of the policy. Accordingly, we do not find that any interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the Fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.