By an order of even date, this revision petition was dismissed, for reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are as under: 2. The husband (deceased) of the respondent/ complainant had obtained a life insurance policy for Rs.25,000/- from the Petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The policy was revived by the LIC on 9th October 1998 based on the personal statement dated 9th July 1998 of the life assured. The life assured, however, died on 30th October 1998. The claim submitted by the nominee, the respondent here was repudiated by the LIC on the ground that the life assured had suppressed material facts regarding the status of his health at the time of revival of the life insurance policy in July 1998. The specific ground was that the deceased life assured had been suffering from kidney problems and was treated therefore in a hospital during 27.05.1996 to 05.06.1996, i.e., after obtaining the life insurance policy dated 17.11.1994 but before its revival. 3. On a complaint of deficiency of service against the LIC for repudiating her claim being filed by the nominee/ respondent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (in short, he District Forum, the latter allowed the complaint and directed the LIC to pay Rs.25,000/- (the sum assured) with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of repudiation till its payment. In addition, Rs.2000/- was awarded as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as cost. 4. This order was challenged in appeal by the LIC before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission. After consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents produced on record, the State Commission dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit, because the LIC had not produced any evidence in support of its allegation that the deceased had suppressed the fact of having suffered from kidney trouble in May June 1996 at the time of submitting the proposal for revival of the policy in July 1998. 5. I have heard Mr. Anil Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner LIC. His only point is about the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum and confirmed in appeal by the State Commission. Considering the meager sum assured and the status of the widow/ nominee of the deceased life assured, I do not think it either necessary or desirable to interfere with the impugned order. The LIC can afford to raise the point regarding the rate of interest on such payments in a better case.