Mr. Justice D.P.S. Choudhary, President—Appellant-Life Insurance Corpo-ration of India is the opposite party which has preferred this appeal against the order dated 27.11.1997 passed by the District Forum, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 684/1996, whereby and whereunder the Forum allowed the claim of the complainant in part and directed the appellant to pay the sum assured, i.e., Rs. 44,000/-, but refused to allow the claim of compensation.

2. The brief fact of the case is that husband of the complainant Bamdeo Tiwari filled up proposal form dated 31.3.1994 for effecting a Life Insurance Policy under Table No. 74-15 for a sum of Rs. 44,000/-. He declared his date of birth 4.1.1942 and mentioned his age as 52 years. (Annexure-I). The Life Insurance Corporation of India effected the policy. The life assured died on 8.8.1994 due to electric burn while attending his duty on 24.7.1994. He was an employee of Bihar State Electricity Board. On 3.1.1995 the Branch Manager of the LIC wrote a letter to the complainant and requested her to send all the papers duly filled along with copy of FIR, Police Report and Post-mortem Report. The complainant acknowledged the receipt of the letter of 3.1.1995 and informed that documents shall be sent as soon as they are completed. The claim being an early claim, i.e., within two years from the date of policy, an inquiry was conducted by Branch Manager, Maharajganj at the instance of Senior Divisional Manager. The service roll of life assured was obtained. The date of birth of the life assured was 9.6.1938 in the service record. As such, in the year 1994 when the policy was taken, the life assured was 56 years of age. The maximum age limit under this scheme is 55 years. This fact was conceded by the life assured. The Life Insurance Corporation considered all the materials available on record and repudiated the claim and letter dated 23.1.1997, addressed to the complainant, was sent by Registered Post. The complainant refused to receive this letter, and filed this complaint case. It was contended by the appellant that the District Forum has not given finding on the fact that life assured had suppressed the real date of birth and obtained the policy by mentioning incorrect date of birth. If he had mentioned the correct date of birth he was not liable to be insured under the Table Term 74-15. The contract of insurance is based on good faith and it cannot be held that principle of estoppel shall apply. Since there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant, nor under the rule the appellant was entitled to pay the amount assured. Therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

3. The learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent submitted that once the Insurance Company accepted the age of the life assured and the premium, it was not open for the Life Insurance Corporation to repudiate the claim on the ground of incorrect date of birth. From the perusal of the impugned order it is clear that as per service record the date of birth of the life assured was 9.6.1938. The date of policy is 28.3.1994. On this basis his age was 56 years on the date of policy. The Money Back Policy Scheme, Table Term 74-15 has the maximum age of 55 years. Therefore, if the life assured had mentioned his date of birth as 9.6.1938, as per service record he was not entitled to have this policy. In the case of early death, the LIC is entitled to make investigation with regard to age of the life assured. In this case the senior officials of the LIC investigated and after perusal of the service record, find that his date of birth was 9.6.1938, but in his proposal form the life assured had mentioned the date of birth as 4.1.1942 and in the column age mentioned is 52 years. It is apparent that this wrong date of birth was mentioned in the proposal form by the life assured in the policy. If he had mentioned the correct date of birth as per service record, he was not entitled to be insured under this scheme of