Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission. The factual backgrounds are that deceased L.K. Dillawar obtained an insurance policy from respondent-Company on 28.5.2007 for which first premium was paid. However, insured died on 18th July, 2007 in a train accident. Thereafter a claim was lodged with respondent-Company by son of the deceased which was repudiated by Company holding suppression of material facts at the time of securing policy as for income of the insured and also the occupation. Aggrieved by repudiation of claim, a complaint was filed with the District Forum, which was contested by respondent -2- reiterating grounds of repudiation. The District Forum, however, on consideration of pleadings of the parties while accepting claim directed Insurance Company to honour claim of the petitioner of Rs.5, lakhs alongwith compensation of Rs.5,000/- and also litigation cost. Aggrieved respondent filed appeal with State Commission, which having taken notice of repudiation of claim by respondent Company stating suppression of material facts as per income of the insured and also the occupation, reversed finding of the District Forum and accepted appeal. Aggrieved petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. Contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioner that since signature of the insured on proposal form was obtained by agent of the respondent Company, deceased having not understood implication had bonafidely put his signature. The learned counsel for the petitioner putting reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Goel AIR 2001 S.C. 549 states that since claim of the petitioner was repudiated by Insurance Company mechanically without giving due consideration to the contentions raised, the finding of the State Commission was erroneous. To recapitulate facts which find mention -3- in finding of the State Commission, petitioner in the proposal form which he submitted to the respondent-Company had shown his employment with Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon having income of Rs.2 lakhs with an authorization letter for making deduction of premium from salary. However, during investigation of the claim, it came to notice of the respondent-Company that the petitioner was not employed with the Municipal Corporation having income of Rs.2 lakhs rather he was working in private company of M/s. MSP Steels & Power Ltd. having annual income of Rs.66,120/-. In the case cited at bar on behalf of the petitioner, repudiation of claim by Insurance Company on the ground of concealment of material facts was negated by the Hon’ble High Court, there being no good evidence about deceased having suffered from heart ailment for which he was shown to have taken leave of 13 days. The ground of repudiation for want of clinching evidence about deceased having suffered heart ailment was considered to be invalid and this finding was also upheld also by Hon’ble Apex Court. The facts of the case under consideration, however, are in different backgrounds. Since insured signed proposal form, he must be aware of -4- import of contents of the proposal form, which would bind him in a matter of contract. Having considered submissions made at bar which fail to make out a goods case, revision petition being without substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.