1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 02.05.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.730 of 2018 in which order dated 04.09.2018 of Sawai Madhopur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 339 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 02.05.2019 of the State Commission. 2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellant in the said FA No. 730 of 2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner(s) was Complainant and Respondents were OPs before the District Forum in the CC no. 339 of 2015. 3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 22.07.2022. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 18.08.2023 and 05.07.2023 respectively. 4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that mother of the complainant purchased insurance policy from the respondent – OP on 28.09.2013 for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and the annual premium was Rs.50,000/-. At the time of getting the insurance, the mother of the complainant was not suffering from any disease and she died in December, 2013. After her death, insurance claim amount was demanded from the OP by the complainant, being her nominee. However, the claim amount was not paid by the OP. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 04.09.2018, allowed the complaint by directing that OPs should pay the remaining amount of the insurance claim amount of Rs.3,50,000/- after deducting the amount of Rs.50,000/- which has already been paid by the OPs to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the OPs appealed in State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 02.05.2019 allowed the Appeal of the OP. Hence the Complainant is before this Commission now in the present RP. 5. Petitioners has challenged the said Order dated 02.05.2019 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds: (i) The impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. (ii) At the time of accepting the proposal of the insured, the insured was duly examined by the doctor of the OPs and found fit for the purpose of issuance of the policy and it cannot be said that there is any wilful concealment on the part of the insured. (iii) OPs failed to file any reliable evidence as to the documents regarding illness of the deceased and the insured was an illiterate lady, herefore, the insurance proposal was filled by the representative Kapil Meena of the OP. (iv) The respondents failed to prove the the wilful concealment on the part of the insured by way of supporting evidence. 6. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below. 6.1. Counsel for the Petitioner repeated the points which are stated in para 5, grounds for challenging the order of the State Commission, hence the same are not being repeated here, except on the point of jurisdiction. 6.2. Counsel for the respondent argued that address of OP No.2 is at Mumbai but the complaint is filed at Sawai Madhopur, hence the complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the order of this Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Gupta and Ors. , First Appeal No. 428 of 2008. 6.3. Life insurance contract is a contract of utmost good faith and the insured in the present case committed breach of the principle of utmost good faith by suppressing material fact that she was suffering from hypertension and brain disease prior to the date of the insurance policy. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( 2009 ) 8 SCC 316. 6.4. The proceedings before the Consumer Forum are summary in nature and counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Surinder Kaur and Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 of 2006. 6.5. Counsel further argued that present case is fraught with fraud and forgery and should be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the findings of this Commission in Sagar Polymers Vs. State Bank of India, decided on 05.12.2002. 6.6. It is further argued that complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. 7. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. The main reason for repudiation of the claim by the respondent – insurance company is suppression of information relating to pre-existing ailments. In this regard, relevant para / order of the District Forum is reproduced below: “From the perusal of the instant case it becomes clear that the Opposite Parties have repudiated the insurance claim of the Complainant on this ground that important facts concerning her sickness in the insurance proposal have been concealed by the insured (Smt. Rajulrani). Now it is to be seen that as to whether the Opposite Parties have been able to prove this fact that the insured Smt. Rajulrani has concealed the facts concerning her sickness in her insurance proposal. The Opposite Parties have produced the photo copis of the documents concerning the admission of Smt. Rajulrani Sharma on becoming sick and her treatment. The certified copies of the documents of treatment have not been produced by the Opposite Parties. Therefore reliance cannot be placed only on the photo copies. The certified copies only of admission on 24/12/13 in the Government General Hospital, Sawai Madhopur and the ticket of the death of the insured have been produced. The certified copy of the medical certificate of the cause of death of the insured Rajul Rani Sharma have been produced from the perusal of which it cannot be accepted that the sickness with which the insured being engrossed before the insurance proposal has been shown, her death occurred because of the same sickness. The physicians by whom the treatment of the insured Rajulrani Sharma has been done, the affidavits of those physicians have not been produced in connection with the treatment. While it is clear from the perusal of the facts of the instant case that the medical examination of the insured Rajulrani Sharma was got done by the physician by the Opposite Parties before doing insurance. The copy of the medical examination has been produced by the Opposite Parties themselves before this Forum. In the aforesaid Medical examination report Dr. Kuldeep Bharadwaj has not reported about the insured being suffering from serious sickness. In this manner the Opposite Parties themselves have got the medical examination of the insured done at their level then the Opposite Parties cannot deny making payment of the insurance claim on this ground that the Complainant had concealed he material facts concerning her sickness in the insurance proposal. Here it is also important to mention that the photo copy of the insurance proposal which has been produced from the side of the Opposite Parties, all the requisite facts have been filled therein by Shri Kapil Meena, sales representative of the Opposite Parties because of the insured being illiterate. The signatures which have been put of himself by Kapil Meena on the insurance proposes the entries have been made in the insurance proposal in the same handwriting. In this manner the entries in connection with the facts mentioned in column No. 13 of the Insurance proposal have been written by Kapil Meena. Since the insured is an illiterate lady, therefore in any manner it was not possible for her to fill in the insurance proposal form. It is generally seen that the agents/Development Officers/ representative of the Insurance Company when the insurance proposal form is got completed for insurance of any person then the same is done by the Agent/Development Officer/representative of the Insurance Company. It was the liability of the Opposite Parties that they should have completely proved from their evidence that the Insured had deliberately concealed the facts concerning her sickness in her insurance proposal form. When the medical examination of the insured done by the Opposite Party Insurance Company at their own level then in such situation there remains no ground of the complainant concealing the facts concerning herself. Here this fact is also important that the Investigator by whom the investigation was done in the instant case, even his affidavit has not been produced by the Opposite Parties before this Forum.” 8. From the above, it is clear that District Forum duly considered this contention of the respondent – insurance company and took note of the fact that medical examination of the insured was got done by a physician of the opposite party before doing insurance. The copy of the medical examination was produced by the OPs themselves before the Forum. In the aforesaid medical examination report, doctor has not reported about insured being suffering from serious sickness. Hence we tend to agree with the observations of the District Forum that OP-Insurance Company having got the medical examination of the insured done at their level, cannot deny making payment of the insurance claim on account of complainant having concealed material facts concerning the sickness of the deceased in the insurance proposal. If any insurance company makes medical examination of the person to be insured a pre requisite for issuing insurance policy, and based on clear / positive medical report, decides to issue the insurance policy, later on the insurance company cannot take the plea that insured suppressed any facts relating to his pre-existing ailment. The State Commission taking note of the judgment to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satwant Kaur Sandhu (supra), P.C.Chacko and Another Vs. Chairman, LIC of India and Others ( 2008) ACJ 456 observed that, if insurance is taken by concealing the fact of previous ailment, then it would be against principle of bonafide. The State Commission has not considered various contentions raised by the complainant. Hence we are of the view that State Commission went wrong in setting aside the order of the District Forum, which is well-reasoned order. 9. Accordingly, we allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. Respondent – Insurance Company will implement the order of the District Forum within one month from the date of this order. 10. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off. | 
