RAVIPATI TIRUPATAMMA Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA MASULIPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's husband Rattiah took out a life insurance policy with the Life Insurance Corporation of India for Rs. 10,000. The proposal of the policy was made on 27th of April, 1967 and the first premium was also paid. After the payment of the second annual premium on 6th November, 1968, Rattiah died and his death was duly intimated to the Corporation. On 14th April, 1969 the Corporation wrote a letter to the plaintiff, enclosing claim forms asking her to send them after signing them. She was also asked to send a copy of the death certificate and certificates for confirming the age of the policy-holder (school certificate or the birth extract). Accordingly the claim forms sent to her were duly filled but instead of sending the school certificate or the birth extract as evidence of age, the plaintiff sent an affidavit of one Jampana. Chandraiah. Thereafter the plaintiff was periodically requesting for an early payment and! even notices were issued by her advocate; but on every occassion the Corporation was replying that the matter was under consideration. The last communication by the Corporation was on 13th November, 1971 in which they again stated that the matter was under their active consideration and they require some more time to arrive at a final decision regarding payment of the policy amount. The plaintiff thereupon filed a suit on 22nd November, 1971 praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 10,000 being the insured amount and interest thereon from 23rd November, 1968 to 22nd November, 1971, viz., Rs. 1,650 in all a sum of Rs. 11,650. The three defendants in the suit were: (1) the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Masulipatnam; (2) Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras; and (3) Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay. They contended that on investigation it was found that the assured had grossly under-estimated the age at the time of proposal and also gave incorrect ages of the members of his family. He had shown his age as 44 years and believing his statement, the Corporation issued the policy subject to proof of age. The age was not admitted by the Corporation and therefore it was not liable to pay any amount unless the age was proved. As neither the assured in his lifetime nor the plaintiff could not claim the amount due under the policy, it was stated that from the records available and from the information collected by the defendants it was gathered that Rattaiah was more than 60 years when he took out the policy and he deliberately gave his age as 44 as the Corporation does not accept the policy of this nature if the person's age is more than 60 years. As the assured gave a wrong age, the contract was void and the premiums paid by the assured stand forfeited.

(2.) The Court below on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the assured was more than 44 years at the time of taking out the policy and the statement in the proposal that he was aged 44 years was a deliberate falsehood to his own knowledge. As the age was not admitted by the Corporation, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the age of the assured and the plaintiff failed to satisfy the Court that the age mentioned in the proposal was correct. The Court below therefore held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the policy amount and dismissed the suit.

(3.) In this appeal by the plaintiff the Only question that arises for consideration is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is entitled to claim payment of the policy amount from the defendants.