Judgment 1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants in limitation matter, we are of the view that sufficient ground has been made out in the Limitation Petition (I.A. No. 3943/2007) which has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The aforesaid interlocutory application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Writ petition by the petitioner-respondent having been allowed with a direction that the same under the policy issued by the appellants along with bonus and interest at the rate of current Bank rate be paid to the respondent-petitioner within six weeks from the date of production/communication of the order dated 12th March, 2007, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The proposal amount for the policy was deposited on 5th February, 2003. The proposal form was submitted on 13th February, 2003. The same matured into a Jeevan Sathi Policy dated 15th February, 2003. The wife of the respondent-petitioner, one of the beneficiaries under the policy, had also undergone Hysterectomy ligation operation on 13th February, 2003. On 7th March, 2003 she was admitted in another Hospital. Ultimately she died on 18th April, 2004. As a result of death, the claim under the policy was lodged. The appellants then contacted the latter Hospital and obtained a certificate dated 11th June, 2003 where it was mentioned that the deceased had undergone operation of Hysterectomy ligation, Appendectomy and partial rectal prolapse. 4. The fact remains that when she was admitted in the second Hospital, Hysterectomy ligation operation had already been done and, at that stage, she was suffering from Appendectomy and partial rectal prolapse, as appears from the report of the said Hospital. The report further suggests that following Hysterectomy ligation operation, she started having pain which continued till her admission in the second Hospital. The appellants repudiated the claim under the policy on account of material suppression as suffering by her of Hysterectomy ligation was concealed in the proposal form. 5. If Hysterectomy ligation operation is a measure taken to cure a disease, of course, suppression was made in the proposal for the disease had been concealed but, if not, there was no suppression. 6. Hysterectomy ligation operation does not cure a disease. It is a measure adopted for family planning. That being the position, there was no suppression at all. 7. We, accordingly, concur with the judgment and order under appeal. 8. 6. Hysterectomy ligation operation does not cure a disease. It is a measure adopted for family planning. That being the position, there was no suppression at all. 7. We, accordingly, concur with the judgment and order under appeal. 8. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is hereby dismissed.