PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 28-06-2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1840 of 2008 Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Rajesh Sharma, by which while allowing the appeal, order of the District Forum allowing the complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Satbir Sharma, father of the complainant/petitioner obtained policy for Rs. 1 lakh from opposite party/respondent on 28-08-2002, which lapsed due to non-payment of premium for the period from February, 2005 to August, 2005. Policy was got revived on 20-09-2002. Insured died on 24-04-2006 due to Cirrhosis. Complainant submitted claim, which was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that life assured was chronic alcoholic and suffered from Cirrhosis and this fact was not disclosed by the deceased in the proposal form. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted claim on the ground mentioned in repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 1 lakh along with 9% p.a. interest and Rs.1,000/- as costs. Respondent filed appeal against the order and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed complaint, against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits, at admission stage and perused record. 4. Petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay and alleged that he received copy of the order on 15-11-2012 and approached his counsel in December, 2012, who demanded records. Petitioner contacted his counsel at Panchkula, who provided photostat copies of record on 20th April, 2013 and this revision petition was filed on 24th May, 2013. As per application for condonation of delay, there was delay of 174 days whereas, as per report of the office, there is delay of 100 days in filing revision petition. Apparently petitioner has not given any cogent reason for condonation of delay. When on 20-01-2013 counsel for the petitioner at Panchkula shown his inability to provide record, he should have applied for certified copies of the record. Not only this, when photostat copies of record were made available by advocate at Panchkula on 20-04-2013, revision petition should have been filed immediately but it was filed after 34 days of receipt of record. Revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. 5. As far as merits of the case are concerned, certificate dated 13-04-2007 issued by Maharaja Aggarsain Medical College, Agroha shows that deceased assured was admitted in the hospital on 02-04-2006 and again on 23-04-2006 with history of alcohol for last 15 to 20 years and with Cirrhosis for last one year. Insured also remained on leave on medical grounds from 02-05-2005 to 30-06-2005 and 01-12-2005 to 10-01-2006 from his employer office. 6. The contract of insurance is based on the doctrine of utmost good faith and life assured was under an obligation to disclose each and every aspect with respect to his health at the time of submitting proposal form as well at the time of revival of lapsed policy, as revival amounts to new contract of policy. Insured had not disclosed fact of being alcoholic for last 15 to 20 years and suffering from Cirrhosis for last one year at the time of revival and had not disclosed fact of remaining on leave on medical grounds for about 3months and in such circumstances, on account of suppression of material facts regarding health, respondent has not committed any error in repudiating claim filed by the petitioner. 7. Learned State Commission dealt with suppression of material facts at length and had arrived at correct conclusion that life assured concealed true and material facts with respect to his health at the time of taking of the policy as well as at the time of revival of the insurance policy and has rightly allowed the appeal. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage, being barred by limitation as well as on merits, with no order as to costs.