JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Late Shri Harman Singh, father of the complainant obtained an insurance policy for a sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2011. He having died on 13.02.2013, a claim for the sum insured was submitted by the complainant/respondent to the petitioner. The claim however, was repudiated vide letter dated 21.08.2013 which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: We have received the documents submitted by you. Upon investigation we understand that the age of Life assured at time of submission of the proposal had been grossly understated, in view of the fact that Life assured was aged 81 years. We were misled to offer the life insurance cover to the Life Assured. Late HARNAM SINGH submitted proposal for insurance on 21/12/2011. The understatement of age was material to the issuance of the policy and ought to have been disclosed in the proposal form. By not doing so, the proponent misled us to grant insurance cover on the terms as stated in the policy schedule. In the light of the above facts and the irrefutable evidence we hold that we were provided with false and inaccurate answer hence the contract is void ab initio. 2. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint. 3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground on which the claim had been repudiated. 4. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 5. The only question involved in this petition is as to whether the deceased was about 81 years old as is alleged in the repudiation letter or he was born in the year 1954 at the time the insurance policy was taken by him. If he was born in 1954, his age at the time of taking the policy would be about 57 years. 6. The deceased insured had submitted three documents in proof of his age at the time the policy was taken. The first document was a Driving License purporting to be issued by Licensing Authority, Amritsar. Second document was the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India and the third document was the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department of India. 7. As far as the Driving License is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that no such Driving License was found in the name of deceased Harnam Singh as would be evident from the endorsement dated 12.07.2013 made by District Transport Officer, Amritsar. In view of the aforesaid endorsement, the Driving License needs to be excluded from the consideration for the purpose of deciding the age of the insured at the time the insurance policy was taken by him. 8. As per the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India, age of the insured was 40 years on 01.01.1994 meaning thereby that he was born around in the year 1954. As per the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department of India, the date of birth of the deceased was 12.04.1954. Therefore, as per both the official documents, the age of the deceased insured was 57 years at the time the insurance policy was obtained by him. Neither the genuineness of the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India nor the genuineness of the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department of India has been disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the age given in the aforesaid two documents. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Electoral Roll wherein the age of the deceased is shown to be 81 years. The age recorded in the voter list is obviously contrary to the age recorded in the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India and the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department of India. However, in my opinion, an entry made in the voter list cannot be preferred over authentic and genuine documents such as the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department of India. If there is a discrepancy in age recorded in the Electoral Roll on one hand and the age recorded in the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department of India on the other hand, it is the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department of India which need to be preferred over the Electoral Roll. Therefore, the concurrent view taken by the fora below as regards the age of the deceased does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
