Revision petitioner, Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this petition against concurrent orders of the fora below. The matter pertains to a complaint filed by the respondent, Charakapu Chinna Rao before District Consumer Forum-II, Vishakapatnam. The case of the complainant was that he had taken a life Insurance policy on the life of his son Goutham. The policy offered money back and death coverage. The insured died on 27.1.2006 due to dehydration and cardiac arrest. The death was intimated to the insurance company and a claim made under the policy on 30.5.2006. 2. The OP Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. repudiated the claim on the ground of over statement of income and non-disclosure of correct particulars/information at the time of submission of the form for issuance of the policy. The complainant alleged that the opposite party had the obligation to verify the correctness of the information disclosed in the application, which was not done. The policy was issued without any verification of facts. Therefore, this cannot be a reasonable ground for repudiation of the liability at a later date. 3. Per contra, the case of the insurance company was that immediately after the claim was received an investigator was appointed whose report showed that there was suppression of material facts in the proposal form. Therefore, the claim was repudiated. In the proposal form, it was claimed that the father and mother both had insurance polices for Rs.5.5 lakhs and 1.0 lakh respectively and the father had an annual income of Rs.1,20,000/- as a Field Assistant in a Cooperative Credit Society. As against this, the report of the investigator shows that the proposer/complainant was a daily wage worker with an annual income of Rs.24,000/-. He held life insurance policy worth Rs.16,000/- only. 4. The District Forum rejected the contention of the OP observing that:- “But the Forum finds that very peculiarly the Opposite Party did not present any material before this Forum to establish that the Complainant is a daily wage worker. Moreover, the Opposite Party did not also file any material before this forum to show that the Complainant and his wife jointly had only one Insurance Policy worth Rs.16,000/-. The Opposite Party also failed to present the Household Card supposedly issued by the Municipal Authority. As such we see that the repudiation by the Opposite Party shows outright callousness coupled with negligence amounting to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party as it miserably failed to promptly pay the sum assured as soon as the claim was put forward by the Complainant on 30.05.2006.” Therefore, the District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the OP/Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. to pay the assured amount of Rs.2 lakhs together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 5. In appeal against the above order of the District Forum, the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, observed that the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company, had not produced any certificate from the dockyard in support of his claim that the proposer was working as a dockyard labour on daily wages of Rs.150/- . The State Commission also noted that the insurance policy was admittedly issued as it was mooted through an agent, who had, after verification, recommended the same. The proposal form itself shows that it was verified by the agent. Therefore, the State Commission rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum. 6. The revision petition in this Commission, has been filed with a delay of 19 days. However, considering the explanation filed in the application for condonation, the delay is condoned. We have also perused the records of the case and heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. 7. The main ground relied upon by the revision petitioner is that the burden of proof was on the Complainant to produce the documentary evidence to prove that the repudiation of his claim by the petitioner/OP was unjust and that the District Forum over looked the fact that the respondent had disclosed wrong particulars. This contention has no merit in it. Having used specific grounds for repudiation of the claim it was necessary for the revision petitioner to produce supporting evidence before the District Forum. We have already reproduced the relevant observation of the District Forum, which shows that no such evidence was produced. In the body of the order of the District Forum, documents marked as exhibits, are listed. The four documents produced before the District Forum do not constitute any documentary evidence in support of the grounds used for repudiation of the claim. 8. We are, therefore of the view that the fora below have correctly appreciated the evidence on record. We find no substance in the revision petition and dismiss the same with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant, within a period of two months. | 
