Order dated 27.11.09 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, the State Commission) in appeal no. 1068/08 is sought to be assailed in these proceedings initiated u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By the impugned order, the State Commission has disposed of ..2.. the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and has quashed the order passed by the District Forum in complaint case no. 361/03 preserving the right of the appellant to plead her case under proper law. The District Forum had earlier rejected the complaint 2. The consumer dispute before the District Forum related to the non-settlement of an insurance claim arising under two policies taken by a certain Damodardas Gordhandas Vasoya who died after taking the policies. The insurance claim was repudiated by the LIC primarily on the ground that the insured at the time of taking the policies had concealed the material facts about he suffering from falsiperum malaria and acute renal failure for which he was hospitalized for a long period and was taking dialysis treatment frequently for the said ailment. It would appear that the fora below instead of examining the said plea of the LIC on its merits, has entered into the controversy about the entitlement of the complainant/appellant to receive the insurance claim under the said policies, the insured having left two other wives and a daughter besides the complainant. In our view, by doing so both the fora below have mis-directed themselves by entering into the said arena and recording the finding that the consumer fora are not competent to answer the complaint. There is ..3… ample material on record which would establish that the deceased had concealed the material facts about his pre-existing ailments and about he having received treatment at hospitals before taking the insurance policies. Going by the legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of P.C. Chacko and another Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & others [(2008) 1 SCC 321] and Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India Assurance Company Limited [(2009) 8 SCC 316] and the recent judgment of this Commission delivered in the case of LIC Vs. Murari Lal Chaudhury (FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2009 decided on 11.02.10) we are of the view that the LIC was fully justified in repudiating the claim under the insurance policies taken by the insured. Holding so, we dismiss the complaint and dispose of this revision petition accordingly.