The judgment established the principle that fraudulent misrepresentations in life insurance proposal forms can render the policies void, and the entitlement to a refund of premiums is contingent on the presence of a forfeiture clause in the policy.

Leach, C.J.

1. The father of the plaintiff in the suits out of which these appeals arise insured his life under the following policies:

--------------------------------------------------------- Date. Company. Amount. Rs. --------------------------------------------------------- 5-11-1934 Tropical Insurance Co., Ltd. 9,000 10-5-1935 Metropolitan Insurance Co, 10,000 Ltd. 13-6-1935 Lakshmi Insurance Co. Ltd. 10,000 25-10-1935 Hindustan Co-operative Insur- 10,000 ance Society Ltd. 21-11-1935 Lakshmi Insurance Co. Ltd. 10,000 9-3-1936 Venus Assurance Co. Ltd. 10,000 19-5-1936 New India Life Assurance Co. 10,000 Ltd. 11-8-1936 Metropolitan Insurance Co. 5,000 Ltd. ---------------------------------------------------------

The assured died on 18th January 1937. All the insurance companies repudiated their liability on the ground that there had been material misrepresentation on the part of the assured and the plaintiff challenged their action in suits filed by him in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. The defence in each ease was that in the proposal form the assured had falsely stated that he had never before made a proposal for life insurance, that he had understated his age by six years and that he had falsely declared that he had not suffered from any of the diseases specified in the personal statement which he was required to sign before the Medical Officer at, the time of his medical examination. The Subordinate Judge held that these allegations were true and that consequently the companies were entitled to repudiate their liability. In the alternative the plaintiff pleaded that he was entitled to a return of the insurance premiums which his father had paid. This plea was rejected except in respect of the Tropical Insurance Co. Ltd. In that case the Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the premiums because the policy did not embody a condition that the company was to be entitled to retain the premiums paid in the event of the policy becoming void as the result of material misrepresentation on the part of the assured. Appeal Nos. 191 to 196 of 1942 have been filed by the plaintiff and Appeal No. 197 of 1942 by the Tropical Insurance Co. Ltd. which contends that the plaintiff was not in law entitled to a refund of the premiums.

2. In 1926 the assured made a proposal to the United India Life Assurance Co. Ltd., for the issue to him of a policy for Rs. 10,000 and in 1930 he made a proposal to the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada for the issue of a policy for Rs. 20,000. Neither of these proposals was accepted as the proposer failed to pass the medical test. The declaration made by the assured that he had never made a proposal before 1934 was false. The plaintiff averred that his father was not the person who made the proposal in 1926 to the United India Life Assurance Co., Ltd. or in 1930 to the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, but his evidence was disbelieved and the Court held that in both the cases the proposer was his father. Mr. Muthukrishna Ayyar has rightly stated that he cannot dispute the identity of the proposer and consequently the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the declaration of the plaintiffs father was false will stand. This is in itself sufficient to render the policies void and it is not necessary for this Court to consider the question of the age of the proposer or the answers given by him in the course of his medical examination.

3. Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar has, however, pressed the contention that the Subordinate Judge erred in not directing the refund of the premiums, except in one instance. He conceded that if the policy included a forfeiture clause the plaintiff would not be entitled to a refund of the premium, but he said that the condition must appear in the policy itself. In only one policy was there such a clause, that issued by the Lakshmi Insurance Co. Ltd., for Rs. 10,000, on 21st November 1935. Except in the case of that company and the Tro