Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... vs Jasvinder Kaur And Anr. on 8 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(2)WLC56, 1992(2)WLN461
JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, J.
1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Sriganganagar whereby he has allowed the claim of the palintiff- respondent.
2. In brief the facts of this case are that the apellant Life Insurance Corporation of India is a corporate body registered uner the L.I.C. Act, 1956. Deceased Baltej Singh got himself insured with the defendant No. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 50,0007-. A policy No. 50763304 (Ex. A/3) was issued. His age was admitted in the policy. Deceased paid the instalments of the premium as per the policy till 17.2.82. It was stated that during the continuance of the policy Baltej Singh died on 27.10.82 but the insurance company has failed to give insurance money to the plaintiffs; the L.Rs. of the deceased and thus, they filed a suit. It was prayed that they are entitled for insurance money, bonus as per the terms of the policy alongwith interest. The defendant admitted the fact that Baltej Singh was insured but submitted that the policy was repudiated on the ground that Baltej Singh gave incorrect statement and did not disclose the fact of illness in the form and also deliberately gave the wrong date of bith. It was also submitted that they are not entitled to any money under the so called policy and the plaintiffs were intimated about the fact of repudiation on 27.5.86. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as eight issues. Thereafter issue No. 3 A was also framed. The plaintiff examined P.W. 1 Jasvinder Kaur, P.W. 2 Chandsingh, P.W. 3. Sukhdev Singh. The defendant has examined D.W. 1 Rajpal, D.W. 2 Ratansingh, D.W. 3 Dr. Ashok Garg, and D.W. 4 Dr. D.K. Puri. After considering the material on record, the learned trial court decreed the suit. Hence, this is defendant's first apeal.
3. Mr. S.R. Singhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased Baltej Singh was ensured before his death with the appellant but the appellant has repudiated his policy Under Section 45 of the Act, as the policy was issued oh the basis of inaccurate and falsefacts. He has submitted that the learned court below has not considered the documents in right perspective and placed reliance on P. Sarojam v. L.I.C. of India .
4. Mr. M.L. Garg, learned Counsel for the respondent had submitted that the question of repudiation does not arise as the appellant has not been able to prove that the deceased concealed the facts of illness fradulently & his identification has also not been established. He has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly, not believed the case of the appellant. He has placed reliance on the Life Insurance Corporation India South Zone v. Bhogadi Chandravathamma L.I.C. of India v. Shakuntala Bai .
5. I have heard lerned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the case law cited before me.
6. In Mithoolal Nayak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the effect of false answers to questions in the propsal form relating to a policy of insurance. It was observed that "the principle underlying the Explanation to Section 19 of the Contract Act is that a false representation, whether fradulent or innocent is irrelevant if it has not induced the party to whom it is made to act upon it by entering into a contract." It has also been observed that Section 45 places...(sic).
7. In this case the petitioner has filed propsal form E.X.A.1 on 20.1.81 and in fact in Clause 17, in answer to queries he has mentioned "No" and the form was accepted on 27.1.81and he paid two premiums and admittedly he died on 27.10.82.
8. It is true that the contracts of insurance are "oberrimae fidei" and that the insured must make a comply and true disclosure of all the facts and true disclosure of all facts known to him relating to his health. It is also true that Under Section 45 of the Act, the appelant can repudiate the contract. The learned Addl. Dist. Judge framed issue No. 4 in this regard. The case of the appellant before the learned court below was that Baltej Singh s/o Tejsingh R/o Chak 10 F Tehsil Karanpur had been treated in Rohtak hospital and he was brought to the hospital on 6.6.77 and thereafter on 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 15th June 77 and on 1st July, 1977 he visited the hospital and he was treated by Dr. Vidya Sagar and electric shocks were given to him but there is no eivence that the person who was treated was the deceased Baltej Singh. That apart there are cuttings in Ex. A-15 and in place of 5401/77, 4127/82 was written. Thus, the appellant has not bee able to substantiate his contention and no material has been placed before the learned judge to establish the identification of the deceased whether the deceased or some-one-else having the same name was hospitalised. The appellant has also not said anything in the evidence that the deceased was suffering from "Mirgi" earlier to the insurance. Dw 4 Dr. D.K. Puri has also said nothing in evidence that due to "Mirgi" life span of the patient has reduced and could result in early death. As already stated the proposal form which was filled and it was approved by the agent and the Doctor of Life Insurance Corp., the appellant, attended and verified the contents regarding the health of deceased. The Doctor has also signed the form which means that all answers were correctly recorded in the absence of any allegation that no previous illness was disclosed at the time of filling form. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that due particulars were with-held and this point cannot be raised at this stage. As discussed above, unless the material facts has not been disclosed or suppressed by the insured and suppression must be fradulently made by the policy holder and the policy holder must have known at the time of making statement that it was false and he is suppressing the material fact, the policy cannot be repudiated and the case cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of this the learned lower court after taking into consideration material on record and on the basis of above finding has rightly decreed the suit as existence of fraud has not been proved. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge which are neither perverse nor based on no evidence calls for no interference.
9. No other point has been pressed before me.
10. In the result, this appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed with cost. The Judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge are maintained.