1.      In spite of service of notice, nobody appears for the respondent.

2.      Heard the counsel for the petitioner. This above revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 13.12.2021 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 02.01.2014 allowing the Complaint No.91/2013 filed by the respondent and directing the petitioner to pay Rs.200000/- with interest @7% per annum as insurance benefit and Rs.7000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of the litigation.  Laleng Patel father of the respondent (Life Assured) took insurance policy on 25.09.2010. In the proposal form his age was mentioned as 45 years. Laleng Patel died on 27.11.2010.  Then, respondent set up insurance claim before the petitioner on 23.03.2011 which was rejected by the petitioner on 26.03.2011 for concealing the age by Life Assured.  Thereafter, the respondent filed Complaint No.91/2013 claiming the insurance benefit under the Insurance Policy. The matter was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the Life Assured has suppressed the material fact relating to his age, therefore, the policy was void and the claim was rightly rejected.

3.    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by impugned order dated 02.01.2014 held that so far as mentioning of wrong age is concerned, it is not material fact.  Further the voter ID is not a reliable document on the basis of it, the age cannot be disputed. On this ground the complaint was allowed.  The petitioner challenged the order in Appeal No.80/2014 which has been dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the order dated 13.12.2021 holding that the petitioner could not show that what prejudice has been caused by mentioning the age of 45 years in place of 54 years.  Hence, this revision has been filed.

4.      In this revision, the petitioner has filed post-mortem report of Life Assured in which age of the deceased Life Assured was mentioned as 54 years.  The petitioner has also filed the copy of Product Circular issued by the Insurance Company in which different premium has been prescribed. For the age of 45 years, the multiplier of 19.56 has been prescribed for the policy for a term of 15 years and for the age group of 54 years the multiplier 31.97 has been  prescribed for the policy for a term of 15 years.  Thus, for the purpose of realization of premium age of different group has been prescribed, which was material fact, which has not been disclosed correctly.  Due to disclosure of incorrect fact, the policy was voidable.  The claim has been rightly rejected by the petitioner in the light of the aforementioned facts.  The order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 02.01.2014 in Complaint No.91/2013 and the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 13.12.2021 passed in Appeal No.80/2014 are set aside.  The complaint is dismissed.  Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.