N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25th June 2001 in R. A. No. 26/1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Karwar, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 4th April 1997 in O. S. No. 148/1992 on the file of the Civil judge, (Junior Division), Karwar. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that, she is the wife of late Sr. Dinga Ira ankolekar, resident of Mudga in Amadalli in Karwar Taluk. Late Sr. Dinga Ira Ankolekar expired on 24th February 1989 and that, the said deceased person had insured his life with the defendant - respondent - Insurance Corporation under Policy No. 75656045 dated 28th March 1986 under table term 14-17. The respondent- defendant had assured the said late Sr. Dinga Ira ankolekar that, in case of his death a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid to his nominee and legal heir. Since Sr. Dinga Ira Ankolekar expired on 24th February 1989, the plaintiff appellant being the only nominee and legal heir to receive the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the Insurance corporation, has filed the application for payment of the assured sum under the policy, referred above. Instead of making the payment of the assured amount, the respondent- Insurance corporation has sent a communication dated 4th September 1990 refusing to pay the assured amount on the ground that, the deceased insured had made a false declaration in his personal statement while reviving the policy for full sum assured, on 11th December 1987 and 9th february 1989. However, by another communication dated 4th September 1990, the Insurance corporation has communicated that, as a special case, they are ready to pay the premium amount received amounting to a sum of Rs. 6,475. 20 which was received after the first renewal of the policy. However, the said amount has been received by the plaintiff appellant herein under protest. It is the case of plaintiff-appellant that, the defendant respondent - Insurance Corporation instead of settling the account by paying the assured amount on the life of the deceased husband of plaintiff - appellant, has dragged on the plaintiff appellant from pillar to post. However, the said amount has been received by the plaintiff appellant herein under protest. It is the case of plaintiff-appellant that, the defendant respondent - Insurance Corporation instead of settling the account by paying the assured amount on the life of the deceased husband of plaintiff - appellant, has dragged on the plaintiff appellant from pillar to post. Hence, in view of non consideration of her request for payment of the assured sum, she was constrained to issue the legal notice through the local counsel on 22nd June 1992 to the defendant respondent calling upon them to make the payment of the assured sum under the policy in question. The defendant respondent has refused to make the payment of the assured sum under the policy by its communication dated 2nd July 1992. In view of refusal of payment of assured sum under the policy, the plaintiff appellant was again constrained to file a suit in O. S. No. 148/1992 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karwar seeking a decree in her favour against the defendant respondent, directing the said authority to pay a sum of Rs. 43,524-80 together with bonus accrued therein to the plaintiff appellant along with cost of the suit. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings and written statement of the parties and after hearing both the counsel appearing for the parties, has framed necessary issue for consideration. After framing the issues, the Trial court after critical evaluation of the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, by its judgment and decree dated 4th April 1997, has decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff appellant and directed the defendant-respondent - Insurance corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 43,524. 80 and observed that, plaintiff appellant is also entitled to bonus that would have accrued on the policy of the deceased and further ordered that, plaintiff - appellant is entitled to current and further interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realisation. Assailing the correctness of the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant respondent - Insurance Corporation has filed the regular Appeal No. 26/1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karwar. Assailing the correctness of the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant respondent - Insurance Corporation has filed the regular Appeal No. 26/1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karwar. The Lower Appellate Court on the basis of the case made out by both the authorities and after perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, after raising the only point for consideration, has allowed the appeal filed by defendant - Insurance Corporation without re-appreciation of the relevant oral and documentary evidence relevant entries and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court as perverse, capricious and not sustainable, plaintiff - appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal praying that the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court may be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court may be confirmed and appropriate direction may be issued to the defendant respondent herein to pay the assured amount under the policy referred above. ( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for appellant and learned Counsel appearing for respondent -- Insurance Corporation. After careful evaluation of the entire original records threadbare, after careful perusal of the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and after careful perusal of the grounds urged by the appellant in the instant memorandum of second appeal, it is manifest on the face of the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate court that, the said Court has committed an error of law much less material irregularity in proceeding to pass the impugned judgment and decree without re-appreciation of the relevant oral and documentary evidence relevant material available on file and also without considering the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Lower appellate Court is unsustainable in view of non re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file. It is significant to note here itself that, after microscopic evaluation of the original records available on file, it is seen that, Ex. D2 is the application tiled by the deceased husband of appellant and Ex. It is significant to note here itself that, after microscopic evaluation of the original records available on file, it is seen that, Ex. D2 is the application tiled by the deceased husband of appellant and Ex. D3 is the Medical Examiner's confidential Report dated 20th March 1986. From the same, it can be seen that, one Sr. Vasanth madhav Higdekatti from District Hospital, Karwar, U. K. has certified with seal of the Hospital in the prescribed Medical Certificate of the respondent - Insurance Corporation. From the said medical Examiner's Confidential Report dated 29th March 1986, it can further be seen that, the deceased husband of the appellant was not suffering from any disease and accordingly, the same has been certified by the Development Officer of the respondent - Insurance Corporation on 29th march 1986. The original application, Medical Examiner's Confidential Report, the development Officer's confidential report and the Agent's confidential report, viz. Sr. G. M. Fernandi, bearing Agency No. 65637 vide Exs. D2, D3, D4 and D5 respectively are respectively found in the original records at ink pages 35, 37, 38 and 39 respectively. All these documentary evidence go to show that, the deceased husband of appellant was not suffering from any disease as on the date of insuring the life of the deceased. Accordingly, the Insurance Corporation has issued the policy to the deceased husband of appellant through its Branch Manager. Subsequently, the said policy has been revived in the year 1988. The Insurance Corporation, instead of paying the assured amount, has taken the hyper technical ground that, the deceased life assured has suppressed the material information that, he was suffering from 'lumber spondylitis'. The Trial Court after careful and analytical evaluation of the pleadings of the appellant and written statement filed by the respondent - Insurance Corporation, has framed the issue that, whether the defendant proves that the deceased Dinga Ira Ankolekar, the husband of the plaintiff - appellant had fraudulently suppressed the material information regarding his ailment and hospitalization in his declarations submitted while reviving his insurance policy and therefore, the contract becomes null and void and the plaintiff appellant is not entitled to the amount insured by the deceased ? In order to substantiate the stand of appellant, the plaintiff appellant herein examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5 in support of her claim. In order to substantiate the stand of appellant, the plaintiff appellant herein examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5 in support of her claim. The respondent - Insurance Corporation examined three witnesses DW1 to DW3 and got marked 28 documents, as Ex. D1 to D28. The Trial Court after reference to these relevant material available on file and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has passed the impugned judgment and decree by assigning cogent reasons. The Trial Court, after elaborate discussion and after careful perusal of Ex. D9 - self statement and D12 - personal statement regarding health has carefully analysed that, the signature of the deceased in these documents is crystal clear to show that, the deceased did not know English and was not such a literate person to know and to remember the name of the disease as "lumber spondylitis". Further, the Trial court analysed that, the very name of the disease is such that, it is very difficult for the common man to remember it just as he can remember the common diseases such as diabetes, BP, Henja, t. B etc and the evidence adduced by DW1 - Officer of the Insurance Corporation is also not sufficient to come to the aid of the defendant to justify his stand for the repudiation of the insurance contract. Therefore, the Trial Court held that, it is not possible to hold that, the deceased husband of the plaintiff had fraudulently suppressed the material information regarding his ailment and hospitalisation in the declarations submitted by him while reviving his policy twice. Further, the Trial Court has critically analysed the evidence of DW1 and pointed out that, the evidence adduced by DW1 shows that so far he has not heard of any life insurance policy holder having died out of spondylitis disease and hence, it is not such a disease which diminishes the average life span of a person. Therefore, the Trial Court held that, the non disclosure of the said disease cannot be termed to be fraudulent suppression of material fact. Therefore, the Trial Court held that, the non disclosure of the said disease cannot be termed to be fraudulent suppression of material fact. It is pertinent to note as referred above, in the preceding paragraphs that, at the time of insuring the life of the Life assured, the deceased has been examined and duly certified by the competent doctor of the government District Hospital, Karwar in the prescribed pro-forma of the respondent - Insurance corporation as already referred above. After careful evaluation of the relevant material documents available on file, it cannot emerge that the deceased - Lite Assured had fraudulently suppressed material fact and the medical report also does not disclose that the deceased was able to remember the name of such a disease nor the defendant - respondent - Insurance Corporation had produced any material to show that, the deceased was informed of such disease by the doctor and that there is also no material forth coming from the relevant records to show that, the deceased was admitted to hospital as an in-patient for taking treatment for "lumber spondylitis. Therefore, after careful critical evaluation of the relevant material available on record including the oral and documentary evidence produced by both parties, the Trial Court has held that, the materials placed before the Trial Court do not prove that, the deceased husband of plaintiff- appellant had suppressed the material information as on the date of insuring the life of the life assured as well as on the date of revival of the insurance policy twice. The Trial Court after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by assigning cogent reasons has recorded a specific finding based on the relevant material and rightly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff appellant and issued the direction to the Insurance Corporation to pay the assured amount to the nominee and legal heir of claimant appellant herein. The Trial Court after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by assigning cogent reasons has recorded a specific finding based on the relevant material and rightly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff appellant and issued the direction to the Insurance Corporation to pay the assured amount to the nominee and legal heir of claimant appellant herein. However, from the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court, it can be seen that, the Lower Appellate Court has failed to re appreciate the relevant documentary evidence available on tile as referred above and also failed to re appreciate the oral evidence and proceeded on the only ground that, there is a public money involved in the Insurance Corporation and held that, when the deceased was suffering from the said disease, he was duty bound to have disclosed the said information at the time of giving declaration and also while reviving the policy. The said reference and conclusion arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court is not justifiable nor the same is sustainable in view of the Certificate issued by the certified doctor of the District Hospital Karwar vide Ex. D3 and the certificate of the agent, Sr. G. M. Fernandi bearing Agency No. 65637 vide Ex. D5. This fact has not at ail been appreciated or considered by the Lower Appellate Court. Therefore, the Lower appellate Court is not justified in shifting the entire burden on the plaintiff appellant herein to show that the deceased had not suppressed the material fact at the time of insuring his life. As a matter of fact, as stated above, the deceased - Life assured has not suppressed any material fact at the time of insuring his life with the defendant respondent - Insurance Company. There is also no reference regarding the elaborate discussion made by the Lower Court white deciding the matter by assigning cogent reasons with reference to the relevant documentary evidence available on file. Therefore, I am of the considered view, at any stretch of imagination the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to succeed in part. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to succeed in part. However, there is some considerable force in the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for defendant - respondent - Insurance Corporation that, the interest awarded by the Lower Court at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realisation is on a higher side and is unsustainable. In my view, award of 12% interest by the lower Court is required to be modified having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. Therefore, in my view, it would be just and reasonable to award the interest at the rate of 9% to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of the appellant as well as respondent. ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 25th June 2001 in R. A. No. 26/1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Karwar is hereby set aside, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Court in O. S. No. 148/1992 on the file of the Civil judge, (Junior Division) Karwar. However, the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Court is modified only in so far as it relates to award of interest and the same is reduced from 12 p. a. % to 9% p. a. from the date of filing the suit till the date of realisation. Accordingly, the defendant respondent - Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay a sum of rs. 43,524. 80 along with bonus, if any, accrued on the policy of the deceased as was ordered by the Lower Court, with 9% interest per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and decree. If the same is not paid, the Insurance Corporation is liable to pay penal interest at 12%. If the same is not paid, the Insurance Corporation is liable to pay penal interest at 12%. ( 6 ) WITH this modification, the regular second appeal filed by plaintiff appellant stands disposed of.