There has been delay of 11 days in preferring revision petition beyond prescribed period of limitation for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed and for reasons assigned therein, the delay is hereby condoned. 2. Deceased Mintu Devi, wife of respondent had obtained a life insurance policy alongwith accidental benefits from petitioner Corporation on 28.6.2001 for assured value of Rs. 1,00,000/-. While so on 5.1.2004 while lighting a stove she suffered burn injuries from flames of bursting stove. She was taken to hospital where she succumbed to injuries on 23.1.2004. An FIR was lodged about the incident. After respondent moved insurance company for claim, that was repudiated taking recourse to the exclusion clause in the policy. A consumer complaint which came to be filed with District Forum was resisted by insurance company holding repudiation on same grounds which were earlier taken by them. The District Forum however on appreciation of pleadings of the parties and on consideration of repudiation of claim on valid ground dismissed complaint. The matter was carried in appeal by respondent and the State Commission on premises of terms and conditions of the policy particularly exclusion clause having not been supplied which were attached in a separate piece of paper with the policy document, holding repudiation to be invalid, while accepting claim directed insurance company to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- admissible under the policy and also Rs. 1,00,000/- as accidental benefit alongwith 9% interest. The insurance company aggrieved with acceptance of claim is in revision. 3. My attention has been drawn to page 28 of the policy document placed on paper-book by learned counsel for the petitioner which bears signature of Mintu Devi impliedly acknowledging terms and conditions of the policy. Though endorsement shown to have been made by insured does not sound well, yet there are other issues which merit consideration. Even in repudiation letter insurance company had taken recourse to terms and conditions of the policy which restricts liability of insurance company to make payment of assured value in case death of insured was in a place other than public place within 3 years. It is urged by learned counsel for petitioner that both District Forum and also before State Commission in appeal they have raised pleadings about repudiating claim of insured taking recourse to clause 4-B of Insurance Policy. 5. Even though respondent did not raise pleadings in their complaint which was sheet anchor of his case about failure of insurance Corporation to supply terms and conditions particularly the exclusion clause of policy, State Commission having overlooked this aspect of matter saddled insurance Corporation to make payment of claim holding that terms and conditions of policy had not been supplied to respondent to make him aware of exclusion clause of policy. The revision petition in the circumstances is allowed with no order to cost. The finding of the State Commission is hereby set aside.