We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission vide which the State Commission has directed the petitioner to pay the sum assured in terms of the life insurance policy of Rs.4,00,000/- taken by the deceased.

          The relevant paragraph of the order of the State Commission is reproduced as hereunder:

          “There is a disparity in passing of the order passed by the opposite party as four policies were taken by the DLA. Only policy No.473547502 has been repudiated, whereas other three policies were allowed by the opposite party. No reason has been given why those policies were allowed and why this policy was not allowed. Therefore, the opposite party cannot take two stands of one person with regard to pre-existing disease. In case, the claim of this policy has been repudiated on the basis of DM-2 with the DLA for the last 19 years then no reason is there why other three policies were allowed, therefore, this policy is required to be allowed on the basis of parity.”

          It is not in dispute that the deceased was suffering from diabetes for a long period of 19 years and died of cardiac arrest. When a claim was made for four policies, in respect of three policies, the sum  assured was paid to the petitioner but the same was not paid in respect of life insurance policy with assured sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that the life assured was examined by the empaneled doctor of the insurance company before issuance of the policy and if the doctor appointed by the life insurance corporation does not find any disease which may come in the way of the issuance of the insurance policy, it is not open to the life insurance corporation to take up the plea that the disease was not declared.

          We, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission.

          The revision petition is dismissed.