1.      Heard counsel for the parties. 

2.      The above appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 18.08.2021 whereby the consumer complaint No.113/2019 has been dismissed.

3.      The appellant filed consumer complaint No.113/2019 claiming the benefit under Insurance Policy No.18365171 dated 15.04.2026 issued in the name of Smt. Bhavna Gupta, wife of the appellant.  In substance, the appellant has stated that Smt. Bhavna Gupta has obtained the above policy for a period of 30 years.  During the delivery, complications arose and Smt. Bhavna Gupta died on 19.09.2018.  The complainant was nominee in the aforesaid policy. The complainant set up claim under the policy, which was rejected by the Insurance Company by the letter dated 30.10.2018 on the ground that while obtaining the policy Smt. Bhavna Gupta has concealed the previous policy i.e. Policy No.0325025464 issued on 30.09.2015 from Bajaj Life Insurance Company.

4.      The fact of obtaining the Policy No.0325025464 dated 30.09.2015 has not been disputed by the appellant.  The appellant took plea that the proposal form was filled up by the insurance agent and it was a long form and it was not possible for Late Smt. Bhavna Gupta to verify all the facts. Smt. Bhavna Gupta has supplied all the information as required by the insurance agent.  If any mistake has been committed, then Smt. Bhavna Gupta could not be responsible for it nor the appellant is responsible for it.

5.      I have considered the argument of the counsel for the parties.  The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has relied upon the judgment of Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod,, AIR 2019 SC 2039. In this, it has been clearly held by the Supreme Court that once the proposal form has been signed by the Life Assured then, he cannot say that the fact mentioned in the proposal form was not in his knowledge.  In the proposal form, the relevant query has been answered as “no”.  Although on the date of signing the proposal form i.e. on 30.01.2016, Policy No. 0325025464 was very much in existence, which was issued on 30.09.2015. Thus, the finding of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the Insurer relating to concealment of fact do not suffer from any illegality.  The appeal has no merit.  It is dismissed.