This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 411 days, which is over and above the period of 90 days statutorily given to file the Revision Petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the case within a period of 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken. Delay of 411 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. Petitioner has attached a medical certificate which reads as under : “Mr.Tarun Dutta 50/M was under my treatment for acute viral fever ċ severe Myalgia & Arthralgia since 23.10.10 onwards. Subsequently he is undergoing treatment for diabetes & hypertension on domicillary basis and comes for regular follow up.” Medical certificate is vague and does not state that the petitioner was so unwell that he could not attend the proceedings or file the revision petition. We are not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner. No ground to condone the delay of 411 days in filing the revision petition is made out. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this revision petition. Petitioner purchased a TV for Rs.32,000/- from Philips India Ltd. – Respondent No.1. TV was manufactured by Respondents No.2 and 3. On the malfunctioning of the TV, petitioner made a complaint to the respondents on 6.4.2005. A mechanic of the respondents visited the place of the complainant and repaired the TV. TV again developed some defects and the mechanic again visited the petitioner’s place and after examining the TV advised the petitioner to send the TV to the company workshop for repairs but the petitioner insisted that the TV be opened in his presence which the mechanic refused. Petitioner, being aggrieved filed the complaint. District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which, the pet filed appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by observing thus : “The District Consumer Forum was right in rejecting the demand of the appellant. The insistence of the appellant for the TV being opened up in his presence at his house so that he could ascertain what fault, was not justified. The company had again sent a mechanic at his house, and that is what they could do. Since the TV had developed fault, the mechanic visiting the house of the complainant, suggested that it was necessary for the TV to be shifted to the company workshop for examination and the demand of the repair man in the circumstances, was not unfair. The appellant’s sceptism about the company declaring false defects in the TV and thereby charging unwarranted amount for the same, is a mere cry in the wilderness, and nothing can be done, about it, unless it is established that non existing defects were shown in the TV, for which charges were obtained, which a very difficult process. The company respondent cannot be said to be at fault and the apprehension of the appellant cannot be said to be well founded, because, there is no prima facie evidence for the same.” We agree with the view taken by the fora below. No interference is called for. Dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. | 
