Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. Delay of 51days is condoned. The District Forum had allowed the insurance claim which order was set aside by the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission found that the insured had suppressed the fact of having obtained three policies while giving information in Question no.9 in the Proposal Form which was replied in the negative. It was found that the insured had taken two policies prior to the policy in question and the total value of the said two policies and the policy in question of which was exceeding Rs.6 lacs. According to the Insurance Company, for policies exceeds Rs.6 lacs in all, special medical examination is required to be conducted and reports like ECG, CBC, ESR etc. are called. However, since the insured had suppressed the fact of having taken earlier policies, the said medical examination could not be done for the purpose of assuming risk beyond Rs.6 lacs. It is now well settled that he contract of insurance is a contract of utmost good faith and the insured must disclose all relevant and material information on the basis of which the Insurance Company had to decide whether to assume risk or not. There has been certainly withholding of relevant and important information on the part of the Petitioner on account of which the Insurance Company has very rightly repudiated the claim. In fact, the judgement in the case of “Roshan Lal Gupta V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India (R.P. No.982/2004)” dated 19.9.2005 of this Commission is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of this, we do not find that any case been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.