Aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 2571 / 2010, the original complainant has filed the present petition. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 26.05.10 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raichur, in complaint no. 83 / 2009 by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint and OP was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,06,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company filed an appeal which has been allowed by the State Commission by means of a detailed and well-reasoned order after having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the facts in particular about the pre-existing disease of renal failure and respiratory disease from which the life assured / husband of the complainant was suffering and had received the treatment at different hospitals which was duly established by filing affidavit of concerned treating doctors. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and have considered her submissions. She would assail the impugned order only on the ground that though affidavit of Dr. K. Rajsekhar was filed but he was not produced for cross-examination. In our view, non-production of the witness was not fatal as he only proved the contemporaneous medical record in regard to the treatment of the life assured before he filled the proposal form. The case is fully covered by the decision of Supreme Court in case of .C. Chacko & Anr. Vs. Chairman, LIC of India[(2008) 1 SCC 321]. In our view, the impugned order is strictly in consonance with the legal position and is based on correct and proper appreciation of the material brought on record. It does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error which warrants any interference of this Commission. Dismissed.