ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This order will dispose Revision Petition no. 2634 of 2016 filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short, the “Act”) setting aside the order dated 31.05.2016 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jaipur (“State Commission”) in Appeal no. 65 of 2016, allowing the appeal and setting aside order dated 16.12.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagaur (“District Forum”).

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material on record.

3. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner late Shri Jumma, had taken an insurance policy on 27.08.2013 from respondent no. 1 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The policy was issued based on a proposal form filled by an insurance agent and signed by the policy holder. The policy holder expired on 16.09.2013 due to a heart attack and an insurance claim was filed by the present petitioner with the respondent. As the claim was not settled despite reminders and representations, consumer complaint no. 195 of 2014 was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service. In reply, the respondent insurance company stated that the claim could not be settled since the death of the policy holder had occurred within one month of the policy and the claim was under investigation. Thereafter, vide letter dated 28.02.2015, the claim was repudiated on the ground that facts pertaining to the age of the deceased life assured (DLA) and the fact of an existing previous policy had been concealed by the DLA at the time of obtaining the policy. It was also stated that the date of birth mentioned in the earlier policy was different to the one mentioned in the policy under which the claim had been preferred. By its order dated 16.12.2015, the District Forum upheld the complaint and directed payment of the sum assured along with interest @ 9% from the date of the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent insurance company preferred Appeal no. 65 of 2016 before the State Commission, which came to be decided, on contest, by way of the impugned order setting aside the directions of the District Forum. By way of this review revision petition, the petitioner seeks the setting aside of the order of the State Commission.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the State Commission erred in not appreciating that the non-disclosure of the previous policy by the DLA was not fraudulent or intentional since the policy proposal had been filled up by an agent. It was contended that the DLA had submitted both his PAN card and Voter ID card which indicated the dates differently and therefore there was no wilful concealment. It was submitted that a medical checkup of the insured had been done prior to the approval of the insurance policy, and even at that stage no discrepancy had been pointed out. Reference was made to the case of one Gurfano Bano, who was also insured with the respondent insurance company under two policies which had a similar discrepancy of recording of age, but had been allowed by the respondent insurance company, whereas in the case of the present complainant/petitioner, the insurance company had taken a different stand. Therefore, it was contended that the repudiation was arbitrary and illegal. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Goyal and Anr., (2000) 2 SCC 160 wherein it had been held that inaccuracy or falsity in respect of some recitals or items in the proposal is not sufficient to repudiate a claim and unless the insurer is able to discharge the burden of proof to establish the circumstances for it, there is no question of the policy being voided on the ground of misstatement of facts. Therefore, it was argued that the mere non-disclosure of the existence of the earlier policy should not have been a ground to repudiate the