State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Br Manager,Lic vs Smt Doli Laskar on 8 August, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSON TRIPURA. APPEAL No.F.A-12 OF 2008. The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Agartala Branch-II,Krishnanagar, Thakurpalli Road, Tripura West. Appellant. Vs Smt. Doli Laskar, W/O.Late Sayan Ranjan Bhowmik, C/O.B.Dutta Gupta,Dutta Gupta Paper House, Kerchowmohani,Agartala, District-West Tripura. Respondent. PRESENT : THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE A.B.PAL, PRESIDENT,STATE COMMISSION. MRS.G.SARKAR,MEMER, STATE COMMISSION. MR.B.K.SHARMA,IAS(Retd),MEMBER, STATE COMMISSION. For the Appellant : Mr.P.K.Debnath, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.B.Chakraborty,Advopcate. Date of Hearing/Judgment : 08-08-2008. J U D G M E N T(ORAL) JUSTICE A.B.PAL,PRESIDENT, 1.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal by the LICI (for short, Corporation), the judgment dated 30-1-2008 rendered by the District Forum,West Tripura,Agartala in CC-13 of 2006 has been called in question. By the said judgment the appellant herein has been directed to pay to the claimant-respondent, Smt. Doli Laskar, the assured sum along with all benefits derivable from the policy of her deceased husband, Sayan Rn. Bhowmik.
3. Before adverting to the issues raised in this appeal the factual matrix may be briefly noticed . Thr deceased insured Sayan Rn. Bhowmik had taken an endowment life insurance policy for Rs.1,00,000/- on 16-4-2001 for the period from 26-4-2001 to 24-4-2011. When the policy was very much in force he died on 27-12-2002 due to rheumatic Arthirarities and cardiac respiratory failure . His widow, the respondent herein, raised claim for the assured amount and other benefits of the policy of her husband on 25-2-2003. After morethan two years from lodging of her claim and morethan 4 years from the commencement of the policy the Corporation repudiated the policy on 23-5-2005 denying, thereby, the benefits of the said policy to the legal heirs of the insured .Aggrieved, the claimant-respondent approached the District Forum,West Tripura, by instituting CC-13 of 2006 putting under challenge the order of repudiation and claiming the benefits of the policy of her husband. The Corporation contested the claim contending , inter alia , that after the respondent lodged the claim the Corporation made an inquiry and detected that the deceased suppressed the information that he had taken 38 days leave on medical ground from 15-8-1999 to 21-9-1999. The Corporation gathered this information from the directorate of Fire Services where the deceased was an employee . He took commuted leave on medical ground for 38 days. It was contended before the District Forum by the Corporation that suppression of this fact is a good ground for the Corporation to repudiate the policy. It is not in dispute that in the proposal form for the policy relating to personal history the deceased did not mention that he had taken leave of 38 days on medical ground in 1999.. The question which fell for consideration before the District Forum, was whether such suppression of fact constituted good ground for repudiation of the policy .
4. The Learned District Forum dealt with the question in detail and placed reliance on Section-45 of the Insurance Act 1938 and the ratio in Santosh Kumar Gupta reported in A.I.R. 2000 Rajasthan 327 . The material question in that case was whether after a period of two years from the date of commencement of the policy the Corporation was legally competent to repudiate the policy on the ground of suppression of facts in the policy proposal. The question was answered in the negative. The District Forum finally decided that the order of repudiation was un- sustainable in law and then directed the Corporation to pay the assured money along with all benefits and cost of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved, the Corporation is before us in the present appeal.
5. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The factual position noticed above being not in dispute we may advert to the question of law pertaining to Section-45 of the said Act. learned counsel for the Corporation made a robust submission that even after expiry of two years from the date of commencement of the policy the Corporation was within its power to initiate an inquiry and repudiate a policy if it is found that the insured had suppressed certain fact relating to his physical conditions and ailment during the last 5 years preceding the policy. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on several decisions of which we may refer first to Mithoolal Nayak Vs LIC of India rendered by the Supreme Court of India and reported in A.I.R. 1962 SC 814. This may be noted here that this decision of the Apex Court was consistently followed in subsequent decisions of the Apex Court and several other High Courts. The Apex Court in Mithoolal Nayak supra observed that fraudulent suppression of material facts constitute good grounds for repudiation of the policy. In another case relied on by the appellant, reported in A.I.R. 1986 Kerala 201, relating to P.Sarojam Vs LIC of India, it was found that though the insured was suffering from serious ailment he did not disclose the same and by giving false statement in the proposal form relating to his health induced the Corporation to accept the proposal. We need not refer to other decision as the same ratio of the Apex Court has been followed in all of them.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondent on the other hand countered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and made forceful submission that after a period of two years from the date of policy the Corporation has very limited power under Section-45 of the Act to repudiate a policy. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in LICI Vs Smt.G.M.Channabasemma, reported in A.I.R. 1991 SC 392. Other decisions relied on by him is that of Supreme Court in LIC Vs Smt. Asha Goel reported in A.I.R. 2001 SC 549. We have carefully gone through the said decisions and we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down in the those decisions have to be read and understood with Section-45 of the Act. For better understanding of the question we are called upon to decide , Section-45 is reproduced below :-
45. Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years- No policy of life insurance effected before the commencement of this Act shall after the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of this Act and no policy of life insurance effected after the coming into force of this Act shall, after the expiry of two years from the date on which it was effected , be called in question by an insuere on the ground that a statement made in the proposal for insurance or in any report other document leading to the issue of the policy, was inaccurate or false, unless the insurer shows that such statement was on a material matter or suppressed facts which it was material to disclose and that it was fraudulently made by the policy-holder and that the policy-holder knew at the time of making it that the statement was false (or that it suppressed facts which it was material to disclose).(emphasis given)
8. From the above provisions it would be clear that no policy of the LICI can be called in question by the insurer after expiry of two years on the ground that there was inaccurate or false information given by the insured unless the insurer can show that (i) such inaccurate or false information was material and (ii) the same was suppressed fraudulently. Admittedly, the policy was repudiated 4 years after commencement of the policy and, therefore, by virtue of the above provision the insurer can repudiate the policy unless it can show that the information suppressed was material and it was done fraudulently. We have once again gone through the ground for repudiation which is that the deceased did not disclose the fact that he had taken leave for 38 days on medical ground. The inquiry of the Corporation done after 4 years from the date of commencement of the policy did not disclose what was the nature of the disease for which the insured had to remain absent on leave for a period of 38 days. Without knowing about the disease it would be difficult to say that the said information about leave for 38 days was material. The other question whether such information was suppressed fraudulently has remained un-answered in the inquiry done by the Corporation.As a matter of fact, there is no specific allegation that such suppression of fact was done fraudulently. Be that as it may, from the above position we can not countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that even after a period of two years the Corporation has the right to repudiate the policy. We have no hesitation to hold that such suppression of facts would not constitute a ground for repudiation of the policy. The fact suppressed must be material and the purpose must be fraudulent. The appellant has fail to fulfill the above conditions.
9. For the reasons aforementioned we find no infirmity in the judgment under challenge . Accordingly, this appeal must fail and the judgment impugned must be affirmed which we hereby do.
The appeal is dismissed .
No cost.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER