1. Heard Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, who did not mark his attendance. 2. Above appeal has been filed from the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 14.03.2019, passed in CC/42/2017, dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant. 3. Rita Banerjee filed consumer complaint No.42 of 2017 with the State Commission for directing the opposite parties to (a) issue notice to the opposite party and try the matter according to law; (b) direct the opposite party to release the legitimate claim of Rs.50 lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim till the disposal of claim; (c) direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for harassment, mental tension, agony and expenses incurred by the complainant; (d) pay litigation expenses of Rs.150000/-(e) impose heavy fine on the opposite party; and (f) grant such other relief/order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity and good conscience. 4. Appellant/complainant being wife is nominee of the life assured Late Ujjval Banerjee. Her husband has taken three life insurance policies from the respondent/opposite party for Rs.10 lakh, Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.50 lakh respectively. He has also taken two life insurance policies from LIC and ICICI. At the time of taking the policies, the agent of the opposite party has filled the form himself and got the signatures of the life assured. The agent also told that details of previous policies have also been filled in the proposal form. Believing on the agent, the life assured issued cheque of Rs.12496/- towards premium and three policies were issued. The life assured paid all premiums in time. Unfortunately, on 26.06.2016, the life assured died due to cardio respiratory arrest. The complainant filed insurance claim on 08.07.2016 with respect to all three policies. Claim of two policies for Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs was allowed but the claim for third policy of Rs.50 lakh was repudiated on the ground that in the proposal form, the life assured had not disclosed the details of other life insurance policies. Aggrieved by repudiation of claim, the complainant filed CC 42 of 2017. 5. The opposite party was proceeded ex-parte. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 14.03.2019 dismissed the complaint with the observation that the complainant had not disclosed the income of her husband (life assured) and the source of income was not disclosed. The State Commission observed that besides the policies worth Rs.65 lakhs two other policies from LIC and ICICI were taken with malafide intention. The State Commission also observed that the insured had supressed the material fact in the proposal form regarding previous policies. 6. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Facts of the case are admitted. Only question is whether the opposite party was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that in the proposal form the life assured had not disclosed the material fact that he had already taken two insurance policies from LIC and ICICI. From the record, it is clear that in the proposal form the life assured had not given details of previous policies. The State Commission also observed that the appellant was asked whether her husband was illiterate or could not read the proposal form before signing the same, she could not answer the question satisfactorily. She could only answer that her husband had faith in the insurance agent, therefore, he did not read the proposal form and sign the same. 7. Findings of fact recorded by State Commission that the life assured supressed the material fact relating to previous insurance policies, is based upon the evidence on record and do not suffer from any illegality. The State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. The appellant has failed to prove any such illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which could persuade us to take a different view of the matter. O R D E R In view of aforementioned discussions the appeal is dismissed. | 
