ORDER : G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu, JJ. Leave granted. 2. An apparently wrong certificate produced by the respondent to show that while taking the policy, the appellant's husband had concealed the factum of his illness has forced her to seek intervention of this Court for setting aside the orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, 'the District Forum'), State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short, 'the State Commission') and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the National Commission'). 3. The appellant's husband-Shri Narender Pal Singh Sandhu son of Shri Risal Singh Sandhu had obtained policy on 11.8.1993. After 13 days, he died. The complaint filed by the appellant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issue of a direction to the respondent to pay the amount specified in the policy was dismissed by the District Forum which relied upon the document R-3 produced by the respondent to show that the deceased has taken treatment as an indoor patient. The District Forum was of the view that the deceased had concealed the facts relating to his illness and, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to claim compensation. The appeal and the revision filed by the appellant were dismissed by the State Commission and the National Commission respectively. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent and carefully perused the record including affidavit filed by the appellant on 21.2.2011 and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. 5. A reading of the policy shows that the appellant's husband late Shri Narender Pal Singh Sandhu son of Shri Risal Singh Sandhu had obtained policy on 11.8.1993 by giving his address H.No. 18, Old Housing Board Colony, Murthal Adda, Sonepat. As against this, the certificate produced by respondent shows that the same was issued in respect of Narinder Singh son of Sardha Singh resident of H.No. 905, Sector-13, Faridabad. In the memo of appeal and revision filed by her, the appellant had indicated that certificate R-3 does not relate to her husband but neither the State Commission nor the National Commission bothered to consider this aspect of the case and dismissed the appeal and revision filed by her by assuming that the deceased had misrepresented the facts for the purpose of obtaining the policy. 6. 6. In our opinion, the impugned order of the National Commission as also orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are liable to be set aside because the same are founded on a document which had really no bearing on the decision of the complaint filed by the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order as also the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Forum for fresh adjudication of the complaint filed by the appellant. 7. Since the complaint was filed in 1997, we direct the District Forum to decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Appeal allowed.