DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist – insurance co., and perused the material on record. 2. The dispute relates to repudiation of life insurance claim of an amount of Rs. 1 lakh by the insurance co. on the death of the insured. 3. The District Forum had heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and vide its Order dated 20.01.2016 allowed the complaint: It is seem after examining the statement of both parties and documents that complainant’s father Mohd. Muslim has made life insurance on dated 25.10.2012 from Opposite Party of Rs. 1 Lakh and he was died on dated 08.09.13 due to Heart failure during treatment. The Insurance claim has been rejected by opposite No. 1 & 2 due to this reason that complainant’s father has shown his age 48-49 years at the time of taking insurance whenever according to his Voter I- card he was 77 years old. Opposite No. 1 & 2 has not deposited any voter list or any other documents, which support their statement. It is seem after examine the documents that complainant’s father has deposited photocopy of PAN Card of Income Tax Department as ID- Proof at the time of insurance, in which he age was registered as 01.01.1982 , it is seem after seeing the photo pasted in it that he was not old than 48 to 49 years. Dr. Anil Kumar, who treated complainant’s father, has mentioned date of birth in his prescription slip dated 08.09.13 as 49 years. Sarpunch of Village Kacahari Takkipur has also written the age of deceased Mohd. Muslim as 49 years. Opposite No. 1 & 2 has not been deposited any documentary proof, which shown the age of Mohd. Muslim as 77 years. As far as the age mentioned as 77 years in voter I- Card is concerned then the same shall not be considered as correct in legal point of view. In this condition forum found that deceased Mohd. Muslim was aged about 48 or 49 years at the time of insurance and opposite No. 1& 2 has made cancelled the claim of complainant after showing their negligence on verifying documents, this shown deficiency on his service. However opposite No. 3 & 4 are Corporate Agents, no responsibility imposed on them in respect of claim. The forum has found after considering above facts and examinations that opposite No. 1 & 2 has committed negligence in service after cancelling claim of complainant on false facts basis, in which complainant beard financial, mental and physical harassment. Therefore, Opposite No. 1 & 2 has been ordered that Rs. 1 Lakh as claim amount and Rs. 10 Thousand as financial, mentally and physical harassment may kindly be given to complainant within 2 months of this order. (extract of the District Forum’s Order ) (as per the translated copy furnished by the revision petitioner ) 4. The insurance co. appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission had heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and vide its Order dated 13.06.2016 dismissed the appeal at the admission stage : 2. Brief facts of this case is that his father had obtained a Life Insurance Policy of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from the appellant on 30-10-2012 but before maturity, the life assured died on 08-09-2013 due to cardiacarrest. The complainant filed claim with relevant documents but it was repudiated. Then, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, Siwan. The opposite –party-appellant appeared and contested the case. After hearing parties, the District Forum passed the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred. - - - - - - 6. Having considered the submission of the appellant and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum, it appears that the District Forum has considered all aspects of the matter in right perspective. It is admitted fact that the father of the respondent had taken a policy of the Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) from the appellant and he died during the insurance period. The complainant has produced PAN Card of the life assured in which the date of the Birth is 01-01-1982. Thus, there is no concealment of age at the time of taking proposal by the life assured. Voter List is a document but we cannot rely the age exactly from the Voter List. The respondent is an entitled to get the benefit. The District Forum order is proper and justified. We do not find any reason to interfere in it. Hence, the District Forum order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. (paras 2 and 6 of the State Commission’s Order ) 5. The insurance co. has filed the instant revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 13.06.2016 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. 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 made by the two fora quoted, verbatim, in paras 3 and 4 above. The unwarranted and albeit uncalledfor attempts of the insurance co. to put the ‘age’ of the insured into question after his demise is not viewed favourably. We also 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. 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. | 
