ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist – insurance co. and perused the material on record. The respondent – complainant was proceeded against ex-parte vide this Commission’s Order dated 11.04.2017. 2. The dispute relates to repudiation of an insurance claim on the death of the insured wherein the insured amount was Rs.4,08,000/- only. The insured died in 2008. The complaint was filed in the District Forum in 2010. We are now in 2019. 3. The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and, through its Order dated 24.02.2010, partly allowed the complaint: 15. Now it is very much clear from the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court about the fundamental principles of insurance law which depends on the good faith of both parties, in case of suppression of material facts, it is the duty of insurance company to prove it. Hence it is law that the burden of proving the suppression of material facts regarding age, income, occupation and pre existing disease by giving wrong answers in filing proposal form by the late Yellapa Kengal i.e. husband of the complainant is on the insurer. But insurance company has not proved any one of their allegations against the complainant. 16. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that, repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant by opposites is nothing but negligence in its service, accordingly opposites insurance company found guilty under deficiency in its service towards the complainant and thereby we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. POINT NO. 2:- 17. Admittedly the assured sum of the policy subscribed by late Yellappa Kengal is of Rs.4,08,000/-, complainant being the nominee under the said policy, she is entitled to get an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- from opposite Insurance Company under the policy. 18. The complainant prayed for to award compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and prayed for to grant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of this litigation. We have taken note of the entire facts and circumstances of this case and we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of the deficiency in service and she is entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this litigation, as such she is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs.4,13,000/-. 19. As regards to the rate of interest claimed, we are of the view that it is a proper and fit case to grant interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs.4,13,000/- and the complainant is entitled for to recover of the said rate of interest from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount, accordingly we answered Point No. 2. POINT NO. 3:- 20. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs.4,13,000/- from the opposite 1 & 2. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of interest 9% p.a. on the above total sum from the date of the judgment till realization of the full amount. The opposites 1 & 2 are hereby directed to comply with this order within six weeks from the date of receipt copy of this order. Intimate the parties accordingly. (paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the District Forum’s Order) 4. The OP - insurance co. appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and, through its Order dated 20.06.2012, dismissed the appeal: 14. In the instant case, the respondent has produced the T.C. in respect of the deceased which tallies with the age mentioned in the proposal form. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand and it is quite distinguishable. Since there is no dispute with regard to the taking of policy for Rs.4,08,000/-, the income of Rs.1.00 lakh p.a. from his business, we are of the considered opinion that, there is no perverse or incorrect finding recorded by the DF in passing the impugned order. Since we are dismissing the appeal on merits, consideration of I.A. filed for condoning the delay does not arise. Accordingly, we pass the following: O R D E R Appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the District Forum, Raichur in Complaint No. 86/2009. No order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellants in this appeal shall be transferred to the DF to enable the DF to pay the same to the complainant after due notice to her. (para 14 of the State Commission’s Order) 5. The OP – insurance co. has filed the instant revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 20.06.2012 of the State Commission. 6. We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. The OP – insurance co. had issued an insurance policy in January 2008, for an insured amount of Rs.4,08,000/-. The insured died due to Cerebro Vascular Accident in November 2008. It is admitted that the premium had been paid, the policy was valid. Death of the insured is not disputed. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We note in particular the extracts of the respective appraisals / observations made by the two fora, quoted, verbatim, in paras 3 and 4 above. We find the award made by the District Forum (quoted in para 3 above), and as affirmed by the State Commission, to be just and appropriate. And, on the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice. 7. The revision petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed. 8. Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution of its Order as per the law. 9. A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the complainant by the Registry within ten days. | 
