Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 28.2.2017 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, “the State Commission”) Hyderabad whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed. It may be mentioned here that one Ramulammam Palutla Gari had taken an insurance policy from the Appellant on 11.01.2013 for a term of 24 years with maturity on 11.01.2062. The assured sum was Rs.4,65,000/-. The policy holder, according to the Complainant/Respondent herein died on 5.1.2014. The Complainant/Respondent, who was the nominee in the Insurance Policy, made the claim before the Appellant but the claim was repudiated on the ground that on investigation it was found that insured died on 12.05.2013 and not on 05.01.2014. The death certificate relied upon by the Complainant and issued by the Local Panchayat has been cancelled as a fake certificate. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner as the insured had died on 12.05.2013 and not on 05.01.2014 as claimed, the Petitioner was not liable to pay any amount to the nominee of the deceased as claim has been made on absolutely wrong and incorrect facts. We may mention here that before the District Forum, the Petitioner did not file the Written Version and the matter was decided ex-parte by the District Forum. The District Forum had awarded Rs.4,65,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of Complaint till the date of realization alongwtih Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost. 2. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission and contended that the papers were handed over to the local counsel and for some reason, which the Petitioner is not at all aware, the local counsel did not appear and file the Written Version and an opportunity should be given to the Petitioner to contest the matter by filing the Written Version. 3. The State Commission by the impugned order declined to give an opportunity and decided the matter on merits and dismissed the Appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as the date of death of the insured was wrongly claimed as 05.01.2014 whereas it is 12.05.2013, the Petitioner is not liable to pay any amount towards insurance policy to the nominee of the insured. 5. In our considered opinion, even if for some reason the date of death of the insured has been wrongly given as 05.01.2014 instead of 12.05.2013, it would not make any difference because the death of the insured is not under dispute. Only the date of the death is under dispute. It is not a case that while filling the proposal form the insured had suppressed any material fact. The policy was issued on 11.01.2013 and the premium of Rs.24,937.28 ps. was also received by the Petitioner. The ground of repudiation appears to be wholly based on irrelevant material and consideration and cannot be sustained. 6. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission by directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of the Complaint till the date of realization alongwtih Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost, does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. | 
