Heard learned counsel for  the appellant.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case of the complainant,in nutshell is  that the complainant is the nominee of the policy holder No14028658806 who has purchased the life insurance policy  from the OP and the policy holder died on 25.10.2012. After the death of the policy holder, the claim was made but it was repudiated on the ground that the proposal form has been filled up  by the policy holder by supressing  his  actual age. Challenging  that repudiation, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP      filed the written version stating  that  during enquiry of the claim they found that  while filled up the proposal form policy holder has not given his age as 36 years old but the voter Identity card shows that she is sixty six years of old. Therefore, they have repudiated the claim stating that the policy holder has supressed the material fact with regard to her age. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.    

.5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ For the reasons aforesaid and under the facts and circumstances we hold that, the complaint petition merits consideration and accordingly it is allowed on contest against the Ops by directing insurance company to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only with bonus  and other facilities  with interest @ 6 % per annum  from the date of claim alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) towards mental harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the complainant. The OP is further directed to repayment of the aforesaid decreed amount  within 30(thirty) days of receipt of this order,failing which the same amount will carry interest @ 09 % per annum  as penal interest till payment.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that    learned District Forum  has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the OP with proper perspectives.  According to him  the date of birth being plan of policy  which  policy holder adopted, but he  has  falsely stated about date of birth  in the proposal form. He relied  on the voter identity card where the policy holder  prescribes  her age as 66  years. He submitted that U/S-45 of the Insurance Act,1938  they have repudiated the claim as the policy holder supressed the actual age.  So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.                   Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.                   It is the only question arises in this case whether the policy holder supressed her actual age. We have gone through  the Annexure-2 the proposal form which clearly shows that the policy holder has shown her age dtd.07.08.1974 basing on  the School Leaving Certificate which has been annexed to the concerned proposal form. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the voter identity card shows that  the policy holder has got age of 66 years. We are not concerned  with  the voter identity card in as much as  it is settled in law that voter identity card does  not give the presumption of correct  date of birth, whereas School Leaving Certificate which is  document  of date of birth mentioned same as 07.08.1974.

9.           Apart from this proviso to Section-45 of the Insurance Act,1938 prescribed that dispute as to actual age of policy holder being not raised during policy issued or thereafter can not  be ground to call policy in question under main provision of Section-45 of Insurance Act,1938. So, the concerned provision can not be applied for repudiation of the claim of complainant.

10.          In view of above discussion, we find no error with the impugned order which  is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.                                      

                  Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                 DFR be sent back forthwith.

                  Statutory amount be refunded.