Heard Counsel for the Petitioner who has submitted before us that on the basis of the report of Dr. P.S. Chhabra as also Dr. Ved Kumar Gupta, it is crystal clear that Complainant was suffering from illness prior to the date of taking insurance which fact was suppressed by him. He has taken us through the report of Dr. Gupta which is at page –63 in which he states that it is unlikely that the disease has appeared only on 9.9.2002 since it takes quite some time for the disease to set in. Opinion given by Dr. Gupta is that it is unlikely, but it does not rule out the possibility totally nor does it give any firm opinion on the issue in question. The State Commission has, in fact, dealt with the case elaborately in paragraphs 17 to 20 of the impugned order. The State Commission took into consideration the discharge summary of Fortis Heart Institute and affidavit filed by Dr. P.S. Chhabra. However, after taking into consideration the same, the State Commission has very rightly come to the conclusion that the Insurance Company had not placed any document prior to the date of the proposal form to show that the insured was suffering from any pre-existing disease. No document of hospital was filed by the Insurance Company to prove that any disease existed prior to 10.6.2002. The State Commission also held that the Petitioner were legally bound to prove that the disease existed prior to the filing of the proposal form on 10.6.2002 and this fact was concealed by the insured while filing of proposal form. In certificate dated 23.9.2003 of Dr. Achintya Moulick, Surgeon who performed the operation, it is stated that the patient had severe aortic regurgitation with endocarditis and it could happen to any patient without prior knowledge of the person concerned. The State Commission has very rightly, after taking into consideration the relevant material on record come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to prove that it was a case of pre existing disease which was concealed by the insured or he had any such disease which was within the knowledge of the insured which he was supposed to disclose. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this revision. The revision is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.