Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. One Ramanathan Chettiar insured his life for Rs. 10,000 with the defendant company. In order to secure this policy it was necessary for him to answer certain questions put by the company with regard to his health and other matters. In particular, he was asked whether in the past he had suffered from venereal diseases, high blood pressure, or any respiratory disease ; and to all these questions he answered that he had not. He was examined by two doctors, who found nothing amiss with him, except that more than half the surface of his body was covered with leucoderma. He was therefore classified as a first class life and a policy granted on the usual terms on the 19th May, 1938. He died on the 4th June, 1941. According to the terms of the policy he was entitled to receive the full policy amount unless he had wilfully made any misrepresentation or fraud at the time of applying for the policy which would render the policy void. The question that arose for decision in this suit by the two sons and widow of the deceased was whether he did in fact make any such willful misrepresentations. The learned Subordinate, Judge found that he had and that on account of the misrepresentations the company had issued a policy on the most favourable terms, which they would not have done had a proper disclosure been made of the previous illnesses.

2. When the plaintiffs put in a claim for the payment of the money they were asked by the company to send them a report by the doctor who had attended the 'deceased during his last illness. In accordance with these instructions, the plaintiffs in due course forwarded to the defendant company a certificate Ex. D-7-c in which the doctor stated that the deceased was of intemperate habits and that during the course of his treatment he had ascertained that the deceased had suffered from syphilis and high blood pressure. On receipt of this letter, Dr. Natarajan, the doctor in question, was asked by the company in Ex. D-8-a to answer certain questions. His answers are to be found in Ex. P-2. It is chiefly on these documents that the defendant company based their case. The only other material evidence in the case is the deposition of a son of the deceased and the evidence on commission of the manager of the defendant company. The latter was naturally unable to say anything about the deceased's condition; and the evidence of P.W. I does not contain anything upon which the Court could base a decision. The learned advocate for the company has argued that the evidence of P. W. I taken together with his statement, Ex. D-8-b, to the company, are sufficient to show that his father was suffering from diseases which would have materially affected the judgment of the company had he disclosed them. In the deposition and statement all that he however admitted was that his father had had head-aches now and then during the past ten years, that he had been examined by many doctors in Mahipalanpatti; and that his mother had told him that his father had some rashes on his body ten years before. The examination by doctors of Mahipalanpatti was presumably after he had made a declaration prior to the grant of the policy ; while occasional head-aches and a single crop of rashes are ordinarily matters of so little significance that the fnsured might have attached no significance to them, and not considered them as illnesses. It would not be possible on the evidence and statement of P.W. I to say that the insured made any wilful mis-statement which could render the policy void.

If a man refers another upon any particular business to a third person, he is bound by what this third person says or does concerning it, as much as if that had been said or done by himself.

4. It is argued that Dr. Natarajan was a referee in that sense ; but we cannot agree; The defendant company wrote to the first plaintiff and by implication told him that he could not receive the amount for which his father's life had been insured unless he sent a certificate from the doctor who was in attendance on his father at the time of his death. The first plaintiff was therefore bound, if he wished to obtain the money, to get the required certificate from the doctor. He at no time represented to the defendant company that he was prepared to accept any statement that the doctor made with regard to his father's health.

8. Having carefully considered whether the defendant should be given a further opportunity of examining the doctor, we feel that it was incumbent upon the defendant company to have examined Dr. Natarajan in any case. He was the only witness who could speak to circumstances which supported the case of the defendant company ; and it was therefore essential, if the defendant was to succeed, that he should examine the doctor and afford an opportunity to the other side to cross-examine him ; so that the Court might judge the value to be attached to Dr. Natarajan's statement. They ought not to have contended themselves with filing the statements made in the questionnaire, which would be almost worthless even if admissible. No petition has been filed by the defendant company asking to be permitted to adduce further evidence. We therefore feel that the defendant company ought not to be given any further opportunity of remedying a defect which was obvious at the outset.