Delay of 10 days in preferring revision petition in view of submissions made is condoned. Dr. Sarvita Kumari Sinha employed as Lecturer in local college, Nawada who had secured insurance policy from petitioner Corporation for assured value of Rs. 1,00,000/- died in the hospital shortly after a fortnight she was admitted at local hospital. Claim preferred by nominee of the deceased insured undisputedly remained pending for long time for want of delay in submission of Form B and B/1 along with claim application. Be that as it may, after wanting documents were supplied to Insurance Company, the claim came to be repudiated holding suppression of material fact as for status of health, pregnancy and menstruation of the deceased insured. Since death of insured was early, on payment of only three yearly payments, detailed investigation was carried out by petitioner Corporation which obviously shows that the insured had her last menstruation on 05.03.1996 pursuant to which she was blessed with a child on 01.07.1996. Policy was secured by deceased insured on 28.03.1996. These facts are not in dispute. Learned counsel for petitioner Insurance Corporation would draw our attention to clause of General Underwriting Rules which apply to proposals on female lives. Underwriting Rules require that proposals on the lives of ladies who are pregnant at the time of proposal will not be generally entertained. However, one of the sub-clauses require that proposal from pregnant ladies having income from employment will be considered only after the proposal is submitted within the first four months of pregnancy. Though this defence was taken by petitioner Insurance Corporation even before fora below to negate claim of respondent, State Commission over-ruled those contentions holding that the wrong date given by her of her last menstruation had no nexus with her death which is admittedly due to Pulmonary Embolism. Defence raised by petitioner Corporation was considered to be not a valid ground for repudiation of claim. District forum and State Commission as well holding no suppression of material fact, while accepting claim, directed petitioner corporation to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- inclusive of compensation to the respondent. This need not be reiterated which has been crystallized by a catena of decisions that policy of contract was based on good faith and suppression of material fact preceding securing policy would render the insurance void ab initio. Lame excuse of respondent who argued in person that since entries in proposal form were made by agent of the LIC, the insured was not liable if there be suppression of fact about pregnancy of insured at the time she took the policy, did not impress us. The insured was not an illiterate person, she being a Lecturer in the college, holding Ph.D Degree. There being suppression of material fact about the status of her health while securing policy, which was in violation of requirement of the Underwriting Rules applicable to female lives, repudiation of claim made by insurance corporation cannot be construed to be invalid. Finding of State Commission being not sustainable is set aside. Consequently, revision petition succeeds, but with no order as to cost.