ORDER Ashok Bhan, President: Life Insurance Corporation of India which was Opposite Party before the District Forum has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 12th September, 2006 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission) in First Appeal No. 1540/98. By the impugned Order State Commission has upheld the Order dated 20.7.98 passed by the District Forum in Complaint No.215/97, to pay the insured amount to the Respondent with interest @ 9%. 2. Shortly stated the facts are: Respondent-Complainant being the nominee of the insured filed the complaint before the District Forum, inter alia, stating that his son Sajjan Kumar, now deceased, had taken an insurance policy for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the Petitioner on 8th January, 1996 bearing policy No.1oo34282843 for a period of 25 years but the insured died on 8.3.1997. Claim preferred by the Respondent was repudiated by the Petitioner on 30th August, 1997 inter alia stating that since the insured had committed suicide within one year of issuance of the policy the claim was not payable as per terms of the policy. 3. On being served, Petitioner filed its written statement taking the same plea which had been taken in the repudiation letter dated 30.8.1997. After hearing both the parties, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed Petitioner to pay the insured amount along with interest. It was held that Petitioner had failed to prove that the insured had committed suicide within one year of the taking of the policy. 4. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. In the present case the policy was taken on 21st March, 1996. On a request made by the insured, the policy had been back dated to 8th January, 1996. The question which falls for consideration is from which date one year is to be calculated i.e. from the 21st March, 1996 the date of issuing of the policy or from 8th of January, 1996 the date from which the policy came into force. Clause 6 of the policy reads as under: "6. Suicide. The question which falls for consideration is from which date one year is to be calculated i.e. from the 21st March, 1996 the date of issuing of the policy or from 8th of January, 1996 the date from which the policy came into force. Clause 6 of the policy reads as under: "6. Suicide. This policy shall be void if the life assured commits suicide (whether sane or insane at the time) at any time on or after the date on which the risk under the policy has commenced but before the expiry of one year from the date of this policy and the corporation will not entertain any claim by virtue of this policy except to the extent of a third party's bonafide beneficial interest acquired in the policy for valuable• consideration of which notice has been given in writing to the office to which premiums under the policy were paid last, at least one calendar month prior to death." [emphasis supplied] 6. The State Commission has recorded the finding that the insured had committed suicide. Insured left a suicide note, which reads as under: "I am committing this suicide under my own will. I have no grievance for any body. I don't have courage [unreadable]. I tried hard but destiny is not in my favour. So, you please should not blame anybody for this. I am defaming you all, so please forgive me for this. And you please don't give up. I pay my regards to my friend Pukhram, sister, nephew and all others. Your son Sajjan Tak". 7. State Commission accepting the fact that the insured had committed suicide on 8th March, 1997 held that since the policy had come into force w.e.f 8th January, 1996 and the suicide had been committed on 8th March, 1997, suicide was committed after one year of the issuance of the policy, therefore, benefit of clause 6 of the policy could not be availed of by the Petitioner-Insurance. Company. Relevant portion of the findings recorded by the State Commission reads as under: "There is also no dispute on the point that the deceased had died on 8.3.97 meaning thereby after one year of the issuance of the policy. Company. Relevant portion of the findings recorded by the State Commission reads as under: "There is also no dispute on the point that the deceased had died on 8.3.97 meaning thereby after one year of the issuance of the policy. Though from record it appears that the deceased might have committed suicide but since as per terms of the policy the benefit of clause (6) in respect of suicide would be available to the appellants only in case where the suicide had been committed by the insured within one year from the issuance of the policy. Since in this case policy had come into force w.e.f. 8.1.96 and suicide had taken place on 8.3.97, meaning thereby suicide was committed after one year of the issuance of the policy, therefore, benefit of clause (6) would not be applicable to the appellant Insurance Co.'' 8. Counsel for the Petitioner relying upon the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Dharam Vir Anand (1998) 7 SCC 348 contends that the relevant date for the purpose of suicide claim is the date of the issuance of the policy and not the date of commencement of the policy which could be ante dated. We find substance in this submission. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment after taking into consideration clause 4-8 of the policy which is similarly worded as clause 6 of the present policy, held that relevant date for the purpose of suicide claim is the date on which the policy had been issued and not the date on which the risk under the policy had commenced by way of allowing it to be dated back. Relevant portion of the observation made by the Supreme Court, is extracted below: "6. .......In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that under clause 4-8 of the policy, the date of policy is the date on which the policy had been issued and not the date on which the risk under the policy had commenced by way of allowing it to be dated back. 9. In the present case, the policy was issued on 21st March, 1996 and the insured had committed suicide on 8th March, 1997 i.e. within one year of the commencement of the policy. 9. In the present case, the policy was issued on 21st March, 1996 and the insured had committed suicide on 8th March, 1997 i.e. within one year of the commencement of the policy. Clause 6 of the policy would be squarely applicable and the Respondent would not be entitled to the insured amount as the insured had committed suicide within one year of taking of the policy. 10. Respectfully following the view taken by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above, we accept this Revision Petition, set aside the order of the For a below and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.