In Great Britain we are accustomed to a considerable degree of uniformity in the mortality tables used by Life Assurance companies for the construction of their premiums and for the valuation of the contracts, and such tables as are used are constructed from data supplied by lives assured here. In India there are operating a number of Companies granting assurances not only upon the lives of Europeans but also upon the lives of Eurasians and Indians, and it would not be surprising if there were great diversity in the valuation bases having regard to the extent of territory covered and the wide range of races and social conditions embraced. Such diversity certainly exists, but it appears to be due more to the idiosyncracies of those responsible for the valuations than to any attempts to express the real experiences of different companies by mortality tables based upon their own data and therefore specially applicable. For example, in the latest Indian Life Assurance Year Book, that for 1927, returns are given for 43 companies. These were valued upon either the HM, OM or OM(5) Table with the addition of a number of years varying from 0 to 9, so that there were no less than 13 different standards, the commonest being OM rated up 6 years or HM rated up 6 years, but in no case was the mortality table based on an experience of Indian lives, whether drawn from persons assured or from the general population. There must now be available a considerable body of experience of native lives and the writer having come into possession of data referring to one group of assured lives, though small in extent and somewhat special in nature, it seemed probable that a short description of it might serve a useful purpose in eliciting expressions of opinion and more extended information. By a curious chance it has, in fact, happened to coincide with the submission to the Institute of a paper based upon a very much larger and more valuable experience.