Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short the District Forum) has filed this revision petition against the order dated 6-10-2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur (for short the State Commission) whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal and upholding the order passed by the District Forum. Briefly stated the facts of the case are: Respondent’s father, Chhotu Singh had taken Endowment Assurance Policy with Profits (with accident benefits) with effect from 21-5-1996 for 15 years’ term. The assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said policy was payable on the stipulated date of maturity if the life assured was then alive or at his death if earlier. The assured died on 12-7-1998. The respondent lodged the claim which was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the assured had concealed material information regarding his age at the time of taking the policy. The age of the deceased was 62 years whereas he mentioned his age as 46 year in the proposal form on the basis of which the contract of insurance came into being with effect from 21-5-1996. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed a complaint before the District Forum. Petitioner, on being served, put in appearance and reiterated the stand taken by it in the letter of repudiation. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.; Rs.1,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal had recorded the following: “It is not disputed that the age in policy which was taken on dated 18-4-1996 by the deceased was mentioned as 45-46 and it is also not disputed that in respect of the age of Chhotu Singh, School Certificate has been filed in which his date of birth is mentioned as 26-5-55 and this policy was taken on dated 18-4-1996 at that time his age comes about 41 years. The Legislative assembly voter list 1998 has been produced in which age of Chhotu has been mentioned 64 years. In our opinion, this voter list is not a proof of age, because neither it bears the signatures of the deceased nor has been prepared by the deceased. To determine the age any person the best evidence can be the School Certificate, as such the deceased has mentioned his age 45/46 years at the time of taking the policy then that cannot be said wrong in any manner because there is difference of 4-5 years in age in the School Certificate and got written by him, which is a minor difference. As such to say that to misrepresent the appellant the age was mentioned 45-46 years, which is wrong.” (These paragraphs are extracted from the English translation supplied by the petitioner of the original order passed by the State Commission, which is in Hindi) Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the date of birth i.e. 26-5-1955 given in the school certificate is that of Panna Singh Rawat son of Chhotu Singh and not that of the Chhotu Singh and the State Commission has erred in taking the date of birth of Chhotu Singh as 26-5-1955 given in the school certificate. We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth i.e.26-5-1955 mentioned in the school certificate is that of Panna Singh Rawat and not of Chhotu Singh and the State Commission has wrongly taken the said date to be the date of birth of Chhotu Singh. Be that as it may, the burden to prove that insured had concealed his real age was on the petitioner as per its assertion which the petitioner has failed to discharge by leading any cogent evidence. The only evidence produced by the petitioner is the voters’ list where the age of the assured is given as 62 years. The age given in the voters’ list cannot be taken as a sure test to determine the exact age of a person. It is common knowledge that frequently small mistakes regarding the residence, age, parentage, do occur while preparing the voters’ list. The mistakes can occur at various stages i.e. at the time of collecting the information or transmitting the same to the printing press or in the printing press itself. Apart from the voters’ list the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that the assured had given his age incorrectly while filling the proposal form. Gopal Singh, the respondent herein, has clearly stated in his affidavit that his father was of 45-46 years of age at the time of taking the policy. Gopal Singh was not cross-examined by the petitioner. There is no conclusive evidence on record to show that the assured had mentioned his age incorrectly with malafide intention with any ulterior motive. In the absence of any conclusive evidence we would assume that the assured had correctly mentioned his age in the proposal form. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. | 
