Deceased Sube Singh had secured a LIC policy of value of Rs. 1,00,000/- from respondent corporation which commenced from 4.11.1999. The assured as ill-luck could have it died on 3.6.2000 following a heart stroke. Petitioner being nominee of deceased submitted her claim with respondent corporation which was repudiated holding that deceased insured had suppressed material facts about status of his health while submitting his proposal on 16.7.1999. Aggrieved with repudiation of claim door of consumer fora was knocked filing a complaint which was resisted by respondent corporation reiterating grounds of repudiation that assured who suffered breathlessness with hypertension accompanied with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Deceased had taken treatment at General Hospital, Karnal and Rohtak during the period of 19.11.1996 to 19.1.1997 and also on 15.2.97, 6.3.97, 6.4.97 and so on. The district forum however on consideration of treatment papers placed on record by respondent corporation in support of its contention did not satisfy with repudiation of claim and while accepting claim granted substantial reliefs to complainant. However when matter was carried in appeal, State Commission having taken into consideration suppression of material facts as was alleged by respondent corporation and factum of having secured treatment in General Hospital of Karnal and Rohtak while reversing finding of District Forum unsuited the petitioner. It is how the petitioner is in revision before us. Since policy in question was secured by insured deceased on 4.11.1999 following submission of proposal on 16.7.1999 and death has taken place shortly within 6 months of securing policy on 3.6.2000, as usual investigation into claim was made by respondent corporation. During investigation the material which was collected by respondent corporation was that deceased had taken treatment in two hospitals referred to above and also that he was a life convict. Treatment papers that have been placed on record by respondent corporation however deserves consideration as for certificate issued by Medical Officer, General Hospital, Karnal it simply shows that deceased was admitted in General Hospital, Karnal on 29.9.1997 with complaint of high blood pressure and breathlessness and he was accordingly referred to General Hospital, Rohtak on 5.10.1997. Even other certificate issued by Dy. Supdt., District Jail Rohtak simply shows that insured was admitted in hospital of jail on 28.11.1996 where he remained confined till 19.1.1997 for ailment of bronchitis. Least it says better that there are two certificates issued by authority concerned, last having been issued by Dy. Supdt., District Jail, however no affidavit who issued those certificates were ever produced on record. That apart even if these two certificates are taken into consideration, a lot remains to be desired as no treatment papers despite repeated opportunities were put on record. We are afraid that on these certificates and finding of disease that deceased alongwith other ailments can be drawn and added to this if post-mortem report was given to be any credence that simply shows that insured simply died of illness without specifying nature of allegation which he suffered and in this view of the matter while setting aside finding of State Commission we allow this revision but with no order as to cost. The order of District Forum is restored which shall be complied with by respondent corporation with all promptitude.