This revision petition was dismissed by an order of even date for reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are as under: 2. Subhash Chand Gupta availed of a house building loan from respondent no. 5. Along with this loan he also obtained the SBI Life Super Surakasha Cover which was being offered simultaneously to secure re-payment of outstanding housing loan in the event of borrower death. The life assured died of cardiac arrest on 27th May 2006, whereupon a claim was lodged by petitioners no.1 to 4 (legal heirs/ nominees of the deceased life assured) with the respondent (SBI Life Insurance Company). When the claim was not settled, the above-mentioned nominees filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, Himachal Pradesh (in short, he District Forum. By its order dated 4th December 2009 the District Forum held the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service and directed as under: nnexure 7 is a copy of certificate of insurance. Its terms and conditions, as enunciated in condition no.5 provides that in the event of death of the insured housing loan borrower due to any cause, the sum assured would become payable to, the Group Administrator and that the sum assured will be equivalent to the outstanding loan amount including interest as per the original EMI schedule. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid binding conditions in existence we direct the OPS No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to settle the claim of the successors n-interest of the complainants within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case, after settlement if any amount in excess is found to have been paid by the complainant they are also directed to refund the said sum to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 18.05.2007, till actual payment is made. The litigation cost, is quantified at Rs.2000/- payable by the OPs, to the complainants. Hence, the complaint stands disposed of in the above terms 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the first respondent filed an appeal before the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, Camp at Solan (hereafter, he State Commission. By its order dated 23rd September 2010, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. It is against this order that the petitioners/ original complainants have come up in this revision petition. 4. In a detailed discussion, the State Commission has given cogent reasons as to why the claim of the respondents/ complainants was not tenable at all. In particular, the State Commission has observed that the deceased life assured had been suffering from a variety of cardiac diseases as well as essential hypertension for a long period before obtaining the life insurance policy from respondent no. 1. These material facts about the status of health of the deceased life assured prior to obtaining the life insurance policy were recorded in a document of the hospital where he was admitted for treatment from 27th March to 5th April 2006. The State Commission has further observed that a copy of this document was filed and also relied upon by the petitioners (respondents before the State Commission) in support of their complaint. Therefore they could not be heard to say that the facts relating to the status of the health of the deceased life assured as recorded in the discharge certificate could not be relied upon because the discharge certificate had not been rovedbefore the District Forum by the doctor who wrote this certificate. 5. In my view, these conclusions of the State Commission are entirely justified and in keeping with the law on the subject laid down by the Apex Court in respect of the duties of berrima fideof a life assured to disclose all material facts at the time of obtaining the life insurance policy. 6. I have heard Mr. Karan Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is not able to add any ground other than that urged before the State Commission, which was rightly rejected by the latter for the reasons summarised above. As a result, the order of the State Commission has to be upheld and the revision petition must fail.