Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the impugned order, passed by the State Commission, whereby the claims of the Respondent/Complainant have been allowed and, therefore, the Appeals preferred by the Petitioners have been dismissed.  The relevant portion of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below:

“The Insurance Company is to prove that the complainant’s husband at the time of taking the policy has knowingly concealed his own sickness.  In this connection according to the statements of the Insurance Company themselves, the MRI that was got done regarding LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS that was done on 20.12.2007.  The complainant’s husband took the first policy on 20.5.2005.  At that time there is no evidence of such disease to the complainant.  The allegation of the Insurance Company is that when both the policies lapsed and then on 5.10.2010 were got revived, at that time these facts were not disclosed by the complainant’s husband.  The evidence that is available on this point, according to which a DISCHARGE SUMMARY Ex. 8 of Krishna Hospital, from which it appears that the complainant’s husband was admitted for one day in the Hospital and his operation for EPIDURAL STEROID was done and he remained admitted merely for one day.  Besides this, on 20.12.2007 his MRI was done at Ramsnehi Hospital and Research Centre.  But on the basis of this MRI he was not diagnosed for LUMBER SPINAL STENOSIS by any specialist or doctor or he has taken any treatment for this disease.  No evidence is available for this, in fact no medical record is available.  Though I agree with principles laid down in the citations given by the advocate of appellant, that as consequence of deliberate suppression of facts the policy becomes void, but in this case it has not been proved that the complainant suffered any such disease or he was treated therefor.  I am satisfied with the District Forum that this fact cannot be accepted only on the basis of MRI because none of the specialist or doctor has made any diagnosis after examining the Report, this is not the fact.  In my view there is no need to interfere with the order of the District Forum.  Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed.”   

From a perusal of the aforesaid reasoning given by the State Commission, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has considered all the material and evidence available on record and has rightly dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner. 

We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned.  Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed.