We have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner issued policy in favour of deceased by name Dayananda. The widow of the deceased preferred claim after his death, which occurred on 29th October, 2008. She forwarded the claim application along with the death certificate. The contention of the revision petitioner while repudiating the claim was that the deceased has suppressed the material fact, namely, that he was suffering from Brain Tumor prior to obtaining the policy, since about 2005 and therefore, the claim was not maintainable. The respondent thereafter filed complaint bearing CC No. 133/2009 before the District Consumer Forum. It appears that the revision petitioner was served with the notice of the proceedings of 14-12-2009. The order of the District Consumer Forum reveals that inspite of due service, the revision petitioner remained absent and therefore the petitioner was set ex-parte. The District Consumer Forum observed that the petitioner did not contest the complaint application and did not place on record any material to prove the defense of suppression of the material fact by the assured. The District Consumer Forum considered the medical certificate issue by the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, which showed that the assured died as a result of acute myocardial infarction. The State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that there was pre-existing disease and there was non-disclosure of material fact by the assured. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the insurer preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation report and the relevant documents were not properly appreciated by the State Commission. He would submit that the complainant did not categorically deny that the deceased was suffering from Brain Tumor. He would, therefore, submit that mere failure of the petitioner to appear before the District Consumer Forum could not be a ground to reject the defense. He contended that serious attempt was made to prove the suppression of material fact by the assured at the appellate stage. 4. We are not impressed by the arguments of learned counsel for the reason that the opportunity to prove such defense was lost at the stage of trial before the District Consumer Forum. There is no justification as to why the earlier medical record was not placed before the District Consumer Forum. It appears, no doubt, that the petitioner attempted to place on record investigation report before the State Commission. The observations of the State Commission are thus: “But the investigation report submitted does not contain his signature and the cause of death. Therefore, the DF has rightly allowed the complaint by recording its finding that no evidentiary value could be attached to such documents. Mere production of such documents cannot be taken into consideration.” 5. The proceedings before the State Commission do not show that the investigation report and the medical record, which is now attempted to be shown to this Commission, was proved by adducing any tangible evidence. The evidence cannot be re-appreciated by the revisional court. The revisional jurisdiction is limited one. We do not find any patent illegality committed by the Foras below. Both the Foras below rightly held that the burden of proof was on the petitioner to establish the suppression of the material fact. The argument that the respondent (complainant) did not deny existence of Brain Tumor is invalid. The burden was never on the respondent to prove any such a fact or to offer specific denial unless the petitioner had adduced sufficient evidence to establish the suppression of such material fact by the assured. Considering the concurrent findings of fact, we do not find it necessary to go into the issue of facts and re-appreciate the material. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. | 
