This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 15.06.2012, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in MA No. MA/11/382 filed in Appeal No. 635/2012 titled /s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Vaijayanti Ashok Deshpande,vide which, Miscellaneous Application filed for condonation of delay was rejected and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. The appeal had been filed against the order dated 07.03.2011 in Consumer Complaint No. APDF/37/2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune, by which the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed and the petitioner was asked to give a sum of Rs.11,48,303/- to the complainant from 18.03.2009 along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- as litigation fees. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant had taken home loan from the ICICI bank for Rs.10,70,000/- and also taken an insurance policy from the petitioner by paying a premium of Rs.78,302.50ps. on 24.04.2007. However, after taking the policy, the husband of the complainant died on 10.12.2007 with a serious heart attack. The insurance company refused to pay the claim filed by the complainant on the ground that the policy had been taken by giving false information to the insurance company. The deceased had the habit of consuming liquor, had diabetes and blood pressure, which he concealed at the time of filling the proposal form. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the amount as stated above. Against this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission which was dismissed as per impugned order on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. 3. At the time of arguments before us, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal for which the application for condonation of delay had been filed before the State Commission. This fact had, however, been disputed by the counsel for the respondent before the State Commission who produced certified copy of the register maintained by the District Forum, according to which the petitioner had received the copy of the impugned order on 5.4.2011 through an Advocate. In case, the limitation is counted from 5.4.2011, there was a delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the date of receipt of the order by the party should be taken into account and not by the Advocate. There was, therefore, a delay of 22 days only and it should have been condoned. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that there was no valid ground for the condonation of delay and in support of this argument, he submitted a list of 13 citations of cases decided by the National Commission in which the delay had not been condoned, because there was no valid reason for doing so. 4. We have examined the material on record carefully and considered the arguments before us and gone through the citations produced. 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the State Commission shows that the application for condonation of delay, filed before the State Commission, had mentioned a delay of 22 days only. However, at the time of hearing before the State Commission, it was discovered that the delay in fact was 32 days, because the petitioner had received copy of the order in question on 5.4.2011 and not on 15.4.2011. The State Commission, in their order, have taken the main plea that since there was delay of 32 days while the application for condonation of delay was filed for 22 days only, there was no option left but to reject the said application. They accordingly rejected the application for condonation of delay. 6. In our opinion, the State Commission has erred in taking such a view, while rejecting the application for condonation of delay. There is not much difference in the number of days mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, i.e., 22 days and the actual number, i.e., 32 days. The State Commission should have considered the overall circumstances of the case in which delay had occurred and then taken a decision whether delay was to be condoned or not ? In our opinion, the number of days involved is not so large that the right of appeal granted by law to a party should be jeopardised. The District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.11,48,000/- along with interest @18% and a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost to the applicant. It shall be in the interest of justice that the appeal is heard on merits after condoning a minor delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. We, therefore, order condonation of delay of 32 days in this case subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs to the respondent by the petitioner. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The case is remanded to the State Commission with the direction to hear the appeal on merits and decide in accordance with law.