By an order of even date this revision petition was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are as under: The facts of the case have been narrated in detail in the impugned order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereafter, he State Commission and need not be recounted here. The only contention raised by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (appellant before the State Commission and petitioner before us) is that the ivan MitraDouble Endowment Policy for Rs.5.00 lakh each, availed of by the complainant (Sunil Dahiya) and his wife (Late Aman Dahiya), became effective from 23rd September 2006, on receipt of the first premium and not with effect from 28th May 2006 as endorsed on the policy. The State Commission dismissed this contention with cogent reasons. Mr. Ranganadhan argued, that though the policy commencement date as endorsed on the policy document was 28.05.2006, it was one of those cases where the premium was accepted by giving a retrospective date of effect of the policy. This does not stand scrutiny. In view of this, there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission in exercise of this Commission power under section 24 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996. Accordingly, the above-mentioned order.