Heard Counsel for the parties for quite some time. The Petitioner chose to remain ex parte before the District Forum. The District Forum has also noted in its order that even legal notice sent by the Complainant to the Respondent was received in an open envelope with postal endorsement efused The District Forum had on the basis of material on record allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, besides Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost. This order was challenged by the present Petitioner before the State Commission. Before the State Commission it was represented - 2- that the wife of the Director of the Petitioner was indisposed and was under treatment in Bombay Hospital for 15 days during which the notice may have been brought to be served on Petitioner. The State Commission also observed that not a single document had been filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission in respect of treatment. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner however states that certificate of admission in the Bombay Hospital and discharge of wife of Petitioner which is at page 107 was in fact placed before the State Commission but the State Commission refused to consider the same. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits before me that in fact the wife of the Director of the Petitioner was hospitalized at Indore Hosptal on 20.7.2009. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was asked by me to produce any document to show as to when the notice was actually sent to the present Petitioner. The Counsel for the Petitioner has placed before me a certified copy of document which shows that notice was repeatedly sought to be served by the postal authorities on 26.6.2009, 27.6.2009, 28.6.2009, 29.6.2009, 30.6.2009 , 1.7.2009 and 2.7.2009 and the notice on all the occasions was not accepted and on 2.7.2009 it was refused. In view of this, the statement made by Counsel for the Petitioner before the State Commission that the notice may have been brought to be served during 15 days when the Petitioner was under treatment at Bombay Hospital is totally false and was rightly not accepted by the State Commission. Admittedly, the wife of the Director of the Petitioner was admitted in the Bombay Hospital only on 29.7.2009 and was discharged on 10.8.2009. In view of this, I do not find that there is any case for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.