and conditions in Policy No. 832471906. Obviously, the District Forum took note of the rival factual contentions and also the further fact of payment of commission in respect of the policy to the agent and consequently, the defence raised on behalf of the respondent herein to justify that the repudiation of the claim was rejected and the complaint was allowed. 6. In the appeal before the State Commission, the respondent reiterated the contentions unsuccessfully taken before the District Forum. As noticed before, the core contention was that on the date of death of “the deceased” there was no concluded contract between the insurer and the deceased. The contentions raised did not find favour with the State Commission and the State C.A. No.270 of 2012 Page 6 of 35Commission found that the acceptance of the proposal was unconditional and in favour of the deceased and therefore the contract should relate back to the date from which the insurance coverage was granted i.e., w.e.f.