PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) Through these proceedings under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Life insurance Corporation (in short, the ‘LIC’) seeks to assail the orders dated 3.08.2009 and 05.10.2009 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 201 of 2006 and miscellaneous application no. 287 of 2009 respectively. By the first order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the LIC before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum, Jaipur by which the District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by Mr. Mahendra Kumar Ralli, husband of the deceased insured Smt. Anita and directed the LIC to pay a sum of Rs.3,300/- to the complainant in addition to the sum of Rs.57,000/- already paid by the LIC to him towards the payable claim and interest under the policy taken by the insured Anita. By the subsequent order, the State Commission dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the LIC for review of the said order. We have heard Mr. Mohinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner LIC and considered his submissions. It would appear that though the LIC had paid the insurance claim amounting to Rs.50,000/- and interest totalling Rs.57,000/-, it resisted the complaint on the ground that while making the proposal the insured had suppressed certain material facts in regard to her state of health, in particular the persistent urine infection and sinus trouble from which she was suffering since the year 2000 and for which she had received treatment from one Dr. Anil Gupta for several months. In support of his contention copies of certain prescriptions / receipts of payments issued by Dr. Anil Gupta and the reimbursement receipts have been filed. From the facts and circumstances and the material produced on record, it would appear that the insured had not come clean while giving necessary information sought from her in the proposal form as she made no mention of having already received treatment from Dr. Anil Gupta for certain diseases from which she was suffering since the year 2000. However, since, the diseases and the treatment given cannot be said to be for any serious ailment, which was specifically required to be disclosed by the insured at the time of the proposal and since the amount had already been paid by the insurance company, the State Commission did not interfere with the findings. While we find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that non-disclosure of the factum of her previous ailment and the treatment received by her amounts to suppression of material facts disentitling the nominee to claim the insurance amount, in terms of the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including that in the case of P.C. Chacko & Anr. v. Chairman, LIC & Ors. [(2008) I SCC 321 but considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand, viz., the amount of claim payable being Rs.50,000/- only and the amount having already been paid, we would not like to interfere with the impugned order in these proceedings. Revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the observation that this will not be treated as a precedent.