Complainant/petitioner took two insurance policies in the year 2002 and died in the year 2004.  Petitioner, being the nominee, lodged the claim with the respondent insurance company, which repudiated the same on the ground of concealment of age.  In the proposal form, the age given was 57 Years whereas according to the respondent, the age was 70 years.  Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the insurance amount along with bonus due with Rs.1,500/- towards costs within 30 days in default whereof the awarded amount was to carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the actual date of payment. 

          Respondent insurance company, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, relying upon the age mentioned in the voter list, came to the conclusion that the age of the insured was 70 years.  That the insured was guilty of concealment of her real age.  The appeal was allowed.  Order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Onus to prove that the insured had concealed her age was on the respondent.  The only evidence produced by the petitioner to prove that the age of the insured was 70 as per voter list and not 56 years mentioned in the proposal form.  No other evidence was produced.  The age mentioned in the voter list is a very weak sort of evidence.  The error can occur at the time of, recording the age by the enumerator or in the printing press.  It cannot be assumed that the insured herself had given her age as 70 to the person deputed to conduct the survey for preparation of voters list.  It could be that the person who recorded the age as 70 may have done it wrongly.  There was no cross-check or verification as to the authenticity of the age recorded.  Only thing required for preparation of a vote is that the person is above 18 years of age.  The State Commission has clearly erred in reversing the order of the District Forum and coming to the conclusion that the insured was guilty of suppression of her real age.

For the reasons stated above, the order under revision is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored.  Revision Petition is allowed with no order as to costs.