The insured is responsible for understanding the contents of the document, and undisclosed illnesses can influence the company's decision to reinstate the policy.

1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether the appellant the East and "West Life Insurance Go. Ltd., is liable to pay to respondent 1, Kolla Venkayya the sum due on a life policy issued to respondent 1s brother, Kolla Janakirarnayya, in December 1935 for as. 15,000. The learned Subordinate Judge of Bapatla has granted a decree to respondent 1 for Rs. 12,862-13-0, after making certain deductions from the claim which dc not now concern us, but has refused him costs. The company has appealed and respondent has filed a memo of cross-objections on the question of costs only.

2. The undisputed facts of the ease are these. Premiums were due on the policy every six months. The premium due on 11th June 1936 was not paid in time. The policy therefore lapsed, but under its terms could be rein stated on "evidence being furnished of good health to the satisfaction of the directors." In September 1936, the premium was paid and the policy reinstated. In this connexion an application form Ex. D-16 printed throughout in English, was signed in Telugu by Janakiramayya, who could not read or write English. In that form were (amongst others) two declarations:

(i) That since the day of my examination for the abovementioned policy, I have had no sickness, ailment or injury whatever except as follows " : and, "(ii) I have not been attended, nor prescribed by any physician, except as follows :

3. Under both of these declarations, the word "none" was written in English by the companys agent in Bezwada (d. w. 5). According to the final clause of the application form the insured agrees that if any of the statements or representations contained herein prove to be incomplete or untrue then this reinstatement shall be ipso facto null and void.

4. Now it is admitted that the answer "none" to these two declarations is in the literal sense of the word, and subject to a question of legal interpretation to be hereafter considered, untrue. From 13th February to 19th March 1936 Janakiramayya was treated as an in-patient at a Mission Hospital in Chirala for arsenic dermatitis. In December 1936 and January 1937 there was a second delay in the payment of premium, a second application form similarly filled up and signed and a second reinstatement, but the evidence and arguments in the case have centred round the facts of the first reinstatement, and we need not therefore consider the later events. Janakiramayya died on 9th May l937, the cause of death being given on the certificate under the heading "other fevers."

5. The principal matter to be first considered is the circumstances in which Ex. D-16 came to be signed. The case for the company is that their agent, D. W. 5 explained the con-tents of the form correctly in Telugu to Janakiramayya and wrote the words "none" on his instructions. The case for respondent 1, as outlined in his own evidence, as p. w. 2, is that D. W. 5 gave him. Ex. 16 at Bezwada (with the answers already filled in) and asked him to get Janakiramayya to sign it and return it by post. The learned Subordinate Judge deals with this matter in para. 13 of his judg-ment but does not come to any positive conclusion. He refers to a definite admission by D. W. 5 as proof that he could not have correctly translated the first declaration into Telugu, but then goes on to point out the failure of D. W. 5 to explain a discrepancy in date, from which the only reasonable inference would be to distrust D. W. 5s evidence as a whole, and hold that the fact of any interview between him and Janakiramayya, in September 1936 was not proved.

6. Mr. Govindarajachari who appeared for respondent 1 has thrown over-board his clients case as to the facts; and, in order to rely upon the law as laid down in para. 600(4) of Vol. XVIII of Halsburys Laws of England, and the case there quoted {Joel v. Law Union and Grown Insurance Co.) has asked us to hold that D. W. 5 did meet Janakiramayya and intentionally misrepresented to him the meaning of the declarations. We are