One Ramanathan Chettiar insured his life for Rs. 10,000 with the defendant company. In order to secure this policy it was necessary for him to answer certain questions put by the company with regard to his health and other matters. In particular, he was asked whether in the past he had suffered from venereal diseases, high blood pressure, or any respiratory disease; and to all these questions he answered that he had not. He was examined by two doctors, who found nothing amiss with him, except that more than half the surface of his body was covered with leucoderma. He was therefore classified as a first class life and a policy granted on the usual terms on the 19th May, 1938. He died on the 4th June, 1941. According to the terms of the policy he was entitled to receive the full policy amount unless he had wilfully made any misrepresentation or fraud at the time of applying for the policy which would render the policy void. The question that arose for decision in this suit by the two sons and widow of the deceased was whether he did in fact make any such wilful misrepresentations. The learned Subordinate Judge found that he had and that on account of the misrepresentations the company had issued a policy on the most favourable terms, which they would not have done had a proper disclosure been made of the previous illnesses.

When the plaintiffs put in a claim for the payment of the money they were asked by the company to send them a report by the doctor who had attended the deceased during his last illness. In accordance with these instructions, the plaintiffs in due course forwarded to the defendant company a certificate Ex. D-7-c in which the doctor stated that the deceased was of intemperate habits and that during the course of his treatment he had ascertained that the deceased had suffered from syphilis and high blood pressure. On receipt of this letter, Dr. Natarajan, the doctor in question, was asked by the company in Ex. D-8-a to answer certain questions. His answers are to be found in Ex. P-2. It is chiefly on these documents that the defendant company based their case. The only other material evidence in the case is the deposition of a son of the deceased and the evidence on commission of the manager of the defendant company. The latter was naturally unable to say anything about the deceased’s condition; and the evidence of P.W. 1 does not contain anything upon which the Court could base a decision. The learned advocate for the company has argued that the evidence of P.W. 1 taken together with his statement, Ex. D-8-6, to the company, are sufficient to show that his father was suffering from diseases which would have materially affected the judgment of the company had he disclosed them. In the deposition and statement all that he however admitted was that his father had had head-aches now and then during the past ten years, that he had been examined by many doctors in Mahipalanpatti; and that his mother had told him that his father had some rashes on his body ten years before. The examination by doctors of Mahipalanpatti was presumably after he had made a declaration prior to the grant of the policy; while occasional head-aches and a single crop of rashes are ordinarily matters of so little significance that the insured might have attached no significance to them, and not considered them as illnesses. It would not be possible on the evidence and statement of P.W. 1 to say that the insured made any wilful misstatement which could render the policy void.

The documents relied on by the defendant company to prove their case of misrepresentation are Exs. D-7-c and P-2. Similar documents were filed in connection with a policy granted by the Oriental Life Assurance Company. The plaintiffs filed these, because they were to some extent inconsistent with the corresponding documents sent to the defendant company; but in general they merely duplicate the allegations made in the statements in Exs. D-7-c and P-2. The defenda