MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where the respondent / complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent LIC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner / complainant obtained two Polices from the respondent, Life Insurance Corporation. The petitioner met with an accident on 17.3.94 and sustained injuries on the forehead, eyes and other parts of the body for which he underwent treatment at different hospitals and finally declared as totally disabled person blind both of the eyes in the year 1996. Thereafter, the complainant informed the respondent / opposite party about this disability and prayed for benefit of ‘extended permanent disability benefit’, as per provision of the policy, which was repudiated. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the benefits as lawfully available, as ‘permanent disability claim’, under the two policies, within a period of two months from the date of order failing which, it was to carry interest @12% p.a. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner /complainant has filed this revision petition before us. We heard the Counsel for both the parties at some length and perused the material on record. The accident occurring on 17.3.94 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner became blind from both the eyes in the year 1996. The question before us is whether there is any co-relationship between the accident, which occurred on 17.03.94 and the petitioner becoming blind from both the eyes, in the year 1996? We have very carefully gone through the material on record as also the material shown to us by the Counsel for the petitioner. We are satisfied that there is not an iota of evidence that there is any co-relationship. No certificate of any Doctor or any other material is produced before us by the Petitioner about any co-relationship between occurrence of the accident on 17.3.94 and the petitioner becoming blind in the year 1996. Another issue is with regard to clause 10(a) of the terms and conditions of the Policy, according to which the accident was to be reported within a period of 120 days of the occurrence. As held by the State Commission, the petitioner was declared totally blind on 17.2.96 and the respondent was informed about the total disability on 15.10.96, i.e., after expiry of almost 8 months or approximately 240 days whereas it is clearly spelled out in clause 10(a) of the Policy that the matter had to be reported to the insurer within a period of 120 days, which as per record is not happened in this case. In view of above, we agree with the findings, based on which the State Commission has rejected the claim of the petitioner, and does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as the impugned order is as per law. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed.