Petitioner’s husband, Dilbag Singh, (the insured) had taken a life policy on 28.11.1998 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.  Policy was lying in a lapsed condition from November 2003 to November 2004.  It was got revived on 13.12.2004 on the basis of personal statement of the insured dated 11.12.2004.  Insured died on 18.12.2004.  Petitioner, being the nominee, lodged a claim with the respondent, which was repudiated on the ground that the policy had been revived on the basis of fictitious personal statement by putting thumb impression of a person other than the life insured. 

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed ad the respondent was directed to pay all benefits with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization within 30 days from the passing of the order. 

          Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has reversed the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  State Commission has relied upon the statement of the Finger Print Expert wherein it has been stated that the thumb impression on the revival form were different from the thumb impression on the original proposal form taken at the time of obtaining the policy in the year 1998.  Finding recorded by the State Commission is based on the evidence of the Finger Print Expert, which has not been rebutted by the petitioner.  No merits.  Dismissed.