Challenge in these proceedings initiated u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to the order dated 14.09.09 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 1652/08. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal filed by the LIC of India against the order dated 31.07.08 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur in complaint case no. 127/06 and has upheld the finding of the District Forum so far it has allowed the claim in respect of the policy No. 0181997935 and it has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum so far as it directed the payment of Rs.2 lakh under the policy No. 181998757 . 2. This revision petition has been filed after a delay of 47 days and even if we condone the said delay, we do not find any merit in this ..3… petition. The impugned order is sought to be assailed primarily on the ground that the LIC has failed to establish on record by means of cogent evidence that the deceased insured was in fact suffering from certain ailments like diabetes, etc. and was receiving treatment at the hospital before taking the policy no. 181998757 in the year 2002. This plea has been considered by the State Commission taking into account the entire evidence and material produced on record including the medical certificates produced by the LIC. In our view, the finding reached by the State Commission is based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material produced on record and is also in consonance with the legal position as settled by the apex court in the cases of P.C. Chacko and another vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & others [(2008) 1 SCC 321] and Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India Assurance Company Limited [(2009) 8 SCC 316] and in the recent judgment of this Commission delivered in the case of LIC Vs. Murari Lal Chaudhury (FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2009 decided on11.02.10). We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the ..4.. order passed by the State Commission which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.