Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 129 (RAJ)

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Devi Chand

2000-02-03

N.P.GUPTA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the defendant-Life Insurance Corporation of India, against whom decree has been passed for an insurance claim of the deceased amounting to as small a sum as Rs. 10,000/- by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi vide his judgment dated 25.10.1983 in a suit instituted way back on 25.11.1978. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the brother of deceased Achal Das who obtained a life insurance cover for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the appellant w.e.f. 28.7.1974 and the insured had expired on 20.5.1977. The information of the death was given to the defendant, all other necessary formalities were completed, but the appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that the insured did not give correct information in response to question Nos. 4 and 6 and that the insured was suffering from the diseases of general weakness dyspnea exertion. According to the plaintiff, this repudiation is bad, on these premises, the decree for the sum assured interest and bonus total amounting to Rs. 12,000/- has been claimed. 3. The defendant appellant admitted the coverage vide Policy No. 2572007 and submitted that on account of the personal statements, declaration and the information's given by the insured being incorrect, the in contract of insurance is null and void. It was also contended that the insurance cover was given assuming the above statements as given by the insured to be correct, whiie it was found that the insured had deliberately concealed the fact of death of his brother five years ago while giving family history, it was also alleged to have transpired that the plaintiff is also suffering is from Bronchial Asthama for the last ten years, the insured was also found to have been suffering from the ailments of General Dedbility, Dyspnea, Aortic Regurgitation and Uraemia since before obtaining the cover, five years ago, he consulted doctors and took treatment. All these facts are alleged to have been concealed by the insured by giving wrong statements. On these premises, it was contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree. The defendant also claimed compensatory costs under Section 35-A of CPC. 4. After framing of the issues, the plaintiff has examined himself., while the defendant examined DW 1 Bastimal Parmar, DW 2 Dr. On these premises, it was contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree. The defendant also claimed compensatory costs under Section 35-A of CPC. 4. After framing of the issues, the plaintiff has examined himself., while the defendant examined DW 1 Bastimal Parmar, DW 2 Dr. Champa Lal, who had examined the insured at the time of receiving the proposal and had prepared Ex.A. 2, DW 3 Mohan Lal the Development Officer, who was there in preparing the proposal, DW 4 Dr. Ganga Singh Chauhan to depose about the deceased suffering from the ailments since before obtaining the cover and having treated him. Another DW is Jagdish Chandra Arya, who has investigated the claim. In rebuttal the plaintiff examined PW 2 Keshari Mal, the Agent, under whose agency insurance cover was given. 5. The communication repudiating the claim has been produced on record and proved as Ex.A 9. This is document admitted by both the parties. 6. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, found that the deceased died on 20.5.1977, interpreting the provisions of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, it was held that the Company is not barred to set the defence in the wake of fitness certificate of its own Agent or employee, as Section 45 empowers the Company to plead and prove all those material matters and suppressed facts, inaccuracy of statements, which the insured was under a duty to disclose. The claim of the plaintiff regarding bonus and interest was decided against the plaintiff for want of evidence. Dealing with issue No. 2, being the precisely central issue relating to the allegations about the non-disclosure of family history and material suppression of personal statements, the learned Court found that the contention about non-disclosure as of family history was abandoned by the defendant. Regarding the material suppression of personal statements, the learned trial Court disbelieved the relevant part of the evidence of the Doctors Champalal and Ganga Singh, held that the defendants failed to present the testimony worth acceptance and have failed to discharge their burden in this regard and believing the statement of Keshari Mal, found that Achaldas, the insured, was in a fit condition at the time of proposal. With these findings, the suit has been decreed as above. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have closely perused the record. 8. With these findings, the suit has been decreed as above. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have closely perused the record. 8. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants centred round the correctness of the decision of the learned trial Court on issue No. 2. Much stress was put to the effect that from the evidence led by the defendant, it is clear that the deceased insured was suffering for a long period before the proposal order upto five years from serious and material diseases General Debility, Dyspnea, Aortic Regurgitation and Uraemia, he got himself treated from Dr. Ganga Singh PW 4 and had deliberately not to disclosed these facts which, if disclosed, would have rendered the proposal to be a sub-standard proposal and the appellant would not have been issued the insurance cover. It was thus, contended that within a meaning of Section 45, the insurance cover has been obtained by suppression of material facts which were within the knowledge of insured and thus, the contract of insurance is tendered void and the decree was prayed to be set aside. 9. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and the reasons given by the learned trial Court. It was also contended that the attitude of the appellant is much too harsh and contrary to very object of its existence, as after having pocketed the premium for few years for a unwary public man who unfortunately died of Jaundice the sum insured is not being paid and the beneficiary is being subjected to litigation in Court after Court for decades. It was also contended that the appellant is some how or the other avoiding to make payment of the amount by inventing and rather simulating the ground to negative the claim, as will be clear from the fact that in the written statement, the defendants have taken many more grounds which were never the basis even for repudiation of claim as done even by Ex. 9. According to the learned counsel, in Ex. 9, the reasons given out were about the deceased being suffering from only General Weakness and Dyspnea for about two years before the proposal, for which he had consulted the Doctor and had taken the treatment in the year, 1972-73, which was not disclosed in the proposal. 9. According to the learned counsel, in Ex. 9, the reasons given out were about the deceased being suffering from only General Weakness and Dyspnea for about two years before the proposal, for which he had consulted the Doctor and had taken the treatment in the year, 1972-73, which was not disclosed in the proposal. As against this, now they have come with the story of suppression of Family History, the insured being suffering from Uraemia so also Aortic Regurgitation and that also for a period of five years before the date of proposal. According to the learned counsel, in these circumstances, it is more than clear that the defendant has rather collected and produced cooked up evidence in an attempt to support their repudiation which has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. 10. I have critically examined the statements of the witnesses and the documents. Having closely scrutinised the evidence, I am unable to find myself to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the question of reliability of the evidence of the defendant, so also on the question that there was any material suppression in personal statements made by the insured, so as to entitled the appellant to repudiate the claim with the aid of Section 45 of the Insurance Act. The learned trial Court, in my opinion, has very rightly decreed the suit. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 11. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2000/-.Appeal dismissed. *******