Mental Capacity Trap

Yaar, I'm seeing this question repeated every year in CLAT UG and people are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Section 44 of the Indian Contract Act (ICA) states that an agreement is void if the consent of a party was given without full mental capacity. Now, here's the question:

P, a minor, takes an insurance policy from ABC Insurance Co. Later, it's found that P's agent forged his signature. But what if P had the mental capacity to understand the policy terms and had given his consent willingly? Still, his age meant he was incapable to contract, so the insurance company can't claim a defence, right? Wrong! The court ruled that since P's mental capacity was not disputed and the agent's forgery was not a defence for non-disclosure, the consent was not obtained without full mental capacity, so the insurance contract is valid. But what about the forgery?