ORDER

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1. This common order shall decide two cases, which involve same facts and questions of law.

2. Shri Koduri Narasamma is the nominee of insured. The insured took two insurance policies, one policy for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and another policy for a sum of Rs.9 lakh. He paid the premium regularly without any default. On 18.5.2011, the insured died. The insurance company/Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited paid Rs. 1 lakh but refused to pay to the nominee amount of Rs. 9 lakh covered under the second policy on the ground that deceased was older than the age mentioned in the policy.

3. In the policy, the petitioner had mentioned his age as 56 years but he was actually aged about 81 years. The insurance policy repudiated the claim on the ground that he had suppressed the material facts. The insurance company also produced voters list, which clearly goes to show that he was aged about

82 years.

4. Likewise, in the second case, Shri Dinesh Chandrqa Maneng Patel, his predecessor had shown the wrong age as 57 when actually he was 66 years of age.

His voter card has also been filed on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the voter’s list is authentic record and fora below should have placed reliance on this kind of evidence.

6. We are unable to subscribe to her view for the following reasons. The National Commission has already taken the view that “The age given in the voters’ list cannot be taken as a sure test to determine the exact age of a person, and that the burden to prove that insured had concealed his real age was on the insurance company”. This was held in R.P. No. 370 of 2007-Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Gopal Singh, decided on 28.01.2011. It must be borne in mind that when the voter list is prepared the person concerned is not required to place the documents showing his actual age and that is based on the oral submission. The petitioner has produced the certificate of declaration -4-

that his age was one, which was given orally. No effort was made to rebut that certificate/affidavit. The person, who has attested the affidavit was not called into the dock.

7. Yet another factor to be noticed is that it is the duty of the insurance company while it is giving policies, to collect the age proof of the insured person. No action was taken by the petitioner-insurance company. They did not collect the authentic, solid and unflappable evidence while issuing insurance policies to these persons. There is a huge difference between the age of 56 years and 81 years. Even a person can see the difference with naked eyes. It is a fact that insurance companies are too eager to issue the insurance policies without verifying the facts mentioned by the insured in his application form. They have got the investigation agencies. No concrete evidence was asked to be produced. They should have rejected the policy instantaneously.

8. It is also pertinent to note that we have pursued the customer’s identity proof which also contains the photos of the insured and the nature of the statement certifying that -5-

“I certify that I have personally checked the customer proposal form, life to the assured and another is affirmation.”

It is very easy to know the age of a person, who appears before the company or his photo is given. There may be difference of 4-5 years only but not a huge difference of 30-35 years or ten years.

9. It is also difficult to fathom why on the same ground, Rs. 1 lakh was released in favour of the nominee of the insured. No explanation is forthcoming. The petitioner cannot have double standards.

10. The Calcutta High Court in case of Hement Kumar Das vs. Allianz Und Stuttgarter Life Ins. Bank Ltd. AIR 1938 Calcutta 648, held:

“This was a case where the whole transaction from the very beginning proceeded upon the basis that the company had satisfied themselves that the proposer was of the age of fifty four and then issued the policy accordingly. In my view,