JUDGMENT : GOVIND MATHUR, J. : ” The Life Insurance Corporation of India has preferred this appeal to question correctness of the judgment dated 8.4.2005 passed by learned Single Bench dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2022/2005. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed are that Shri Phool Chand, husband of respondent No.3 Smt. Rukma Devi, obtained a life insurance policy on 28.9.2000 but the same expired on 27.9.2002 due to default in payment of premium. The life insurance policy came to be renewed on 17.4.2003. While getting the policy renewed, Late Shri Phool Chand made a declaration in the statement about his health that he was not suffering from any disease/ailment that require treatment for a period of one week and he was in good health at the time of seeking renewal of the policy. He also accepted that if any statement/declaration made by him is found false then the Life Insurance Corporation of India shall be at liberty to repudiate the policy. Shri Phool Chand on 23.4.2003 was admitted to Government Hospital, Sojat City being suffered with hypertension and anemia. On 28.4.2003 he left the hospital against medical advise. The treating doctor while relieving Shri Phool Chand from hospital made a note in the bed head ticket that ' known case of hypertension-diabetes mellitus' . Shri Phool Chand unfortunately died on 24.5.2003. A claim made by his wife, the petitioner, to have the amount insured was denied and the Corporation repudiated the policy on the count that Late Shri Phool Chand made a false statement while making a declaration about his health on 17.4.2003 while getting his insurance policy renewed. 3. Being aggrieved by the same respondent No.3 Smt. Rukma Devi preferred an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Jodhpur that came to be accepted by an order dated 18.12.2004. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India to make payment of the claimed amount with interest @ 9% per annum to Smt. Rukma Devi with a litigation cost of Rs.250/-. 4. A challenge was given by the Life Insurance Corporation of India to the award dated 18.12.2004 passed by Lok Adalat by way of filing a petition for writ and that came to be dismissed by the order impugned. 5. 4. A challenge was given by the Life Insurance Corporation of India to the award dated 18.12.2004 passed by Lok Adalat by way of filing a petition for writ and that came to be dismissed by the order impugned. 5. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the corporation is that the Permanent Lok Adalat as well as learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that on 28.4.2003 treating doctor at Government Hospital Sojat City in quite unambiguous terms mentioned in the bed head ticket of Late Shri Phool Chand that he was suffering from ' known case of hypertension-diabetes mellitus' . This note clearly indicates that the insured person made a false statement about his health on 17.4.2003. According to learned counsel, looking to the nature of disease the Corporation rightly repudiated the policy and denied for the claim. He has supported his argument by relying upon a judgment of Hon ” ble Supreme Court in Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Company Ltd, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 7213. As per learned counsel, in the case aforesaid Hon ” ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances arrived at the conclusion that there was clear suppression of material facts in regard to the health of insured and, therefore, the insurer was justified in repudiating the insurance contract. 6. In our opinion the judgment relied upon is having no application in the present set of facts. In the case of Satwant Kaur Sandhu (supra) the insured died due to chronic renal failure and prior to that he was regularly undergoing haemodialysis. The insured in that case not only declared that he was of sound health but also not disclosed about treatment availed i.e. of undergoing haemodialysis. 7. In the case in hand there is no material on basis of that it may be concluded that the insured ever availed any treatment for the disease/ailment referred in the bed head ticket. Merely for the reason that treating doctor in the bed head ticket put a note about disease of the insured with a prefix ' known ” , it cannot be presumed that on 17.4.2003 the insured suppressed some material fact within his knowledge. In our considered opinion the decision arrived by the Permanent Lok Adalat as affirmed by learned single Judge does not suffer from any wrong that may warrant interference in our appellate jurisdiction. 8. In our considered opinion the decision arrived by the Permanent Lok Adalat as affirmed by learned single Judge does not suffer from any wrong that may warrant interference in our appellate jurisdiction. 8. The appeal, thus, is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.