Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Whether the pre-suit pendente lite and future interest could be awarded at the rate of 15% in view of the prohibition of the payment of interest under the insurance policy and in view of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

The facts leading to the issues in dispute are that Shiv Kumar Sharma, the husband of the plaintiff- respondent had taken insurance policy with the defendant- appellant bearing No.76038269 dated 15.09.1984 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The said policy was taken through the agent of the appellant-Corporation who had promised that all benefits including accidental benefits arising out of or accruing in terms of the said policy would be given and since Late Shiv Kumar Sharma died on 08.05.1986 due to an accident and the defendant-respondent being the widow of the deceased and the nominee had lodged a claim for compensation under the said policy to make payment of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.30,000/- as insurance amount plus Rs.30,000/- as accidental benefit) under Clause 10(b) of the insurance policy. It was alleged that the deceased had died due to an accident in Medical College, Rohtak and the death certificate, the medical certificate for the cause of death and the post-mortem reports were also enclosed. It was alleged that the appellant-Corporation had been requested several times to make the payments of compensation plus bonus amounts. The defendant- respondent was an unemployed housewife who was living three unmarried daughters and two minor sons. The appellant-Corporation, instead of making prompt payment of compensation, repudiated the claim on 31.03.1987. The ground sought in support of the repudiation of the policy was flimsy, false and frivolous and the repudiation was against the mandatory and statutory provisions of the insurance policy since no false information had been supplied by the insured and no material information had been suppressed. It was also alleged that the insured never suffered from any of the diseases as mentioned in Clause 18(e) of the proposal form and the insured never suffered from giddiness and vertigo and he never remained on leave on medical grounds and in fact if a mention was made, it was a ruse and device to avail of leave and the repudiation was without affording any opportunity of hearing and violated the principles of natural justice and the same was not permissible. In fact, it was alleged that giddiness and vertigo do not fall under Clause 18(e) of the proposal form. Accordingly, a claim was made to recover Rs.30,000/- as insurance amount plus Rs.30,000/- as accidental benefits plus Rs.2,640/- as bonus amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of death of the insured till the date of the payment by the Corporation.

The suit was resisted by filing written statement that since the claim was an early claim, the same was put to investigation and after receipt of the investigation report, it was found that the deceased had died after falling from the roof and he had been an old patient of giddiness and vertigo prior to his taking the policy. The deceased was alleged to have taken leave from 02.05.1983 to 28.05.1983 from his office on medical grounds. The deceased had also willfully suppressed material fact from his proposal form and personal statements and declaration regarding his health, and therefore, the repudiation was valid in law. Clause 18(e) and 21 were reproduced to contend that giddiness and vertigo come under the ambit of the diseases mentioned in Clause 18(e) and the policy was void, and therefore, the repudiation was legal. The Corporation alleged that the insured had suffered from giddiness and vertigo which are diseases of brain and the nervous system and had the proposer disclosed the diseases of giddiness and vertigo and of availing leave on medical grounds, the insurance policy would not have been under written and accordingly it was held that the Corporation was not bound to make any payment under the policy as stated in the earlier paragraphs.

3. Relief.

The defendant-Bimla Devi appeared as PW1 whereas Sh.M.R.Kathuria was examined on behalf of the Corporation as DW1. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that vertigo and giddiness were never mentioned in column No.18 or any other column of the proposal for insurance (Exhibit P2) and the said column mentioned all the diseases but there was no description of giddiness and vertigo and they could not be read by way of implication into column 18. Reliance was also made to the cross-examination of the witness, Sh.M.R.Kathuria as to on what basis he could say that vertigo and giddiness were connected with the diseases mentioned in Column 18(c), viz., paralysis, insanity, epilepsy, fits of any kind or nervous break-down or any other diseases of the brain or nervous system. Accordingly, the trial Court held that in the absence of any medical expert, the statement of the witness on the basis of personal information was not acceptable. The trial Court also noticed that no show cause was issued to the defendant-respondent as to whether the insurance policy be repudiated and the letters (Exhibit D2 & D3) for leave moved by the deceased who was working as a Secretary of the Market Committee under the Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board were not proved as nobody was examined to show that either the said leave application was signed in their presence. The contents were also referred to and it was noticed that they were only applications for earned leave and no specific illness was mentioned and the SMO, General Hospital had recommended him fit to resume duty. Accordingly, the suit was decreed and the plaintiff was thus held entitled to a sum of Rs.60,640/- along with interest at the rate of 15% from the death of the deceased till the date of institution of the suit and the pendente lite interest and future interest at the same rate.

In the present case, it may be noticed that the deceased was serving as a Secretary in the Haryana Agricultural and Marketting Board and died due to an accidental fall in the Medical College premises, Rohtak. This would be clear from the fact that the post-mortem report (Exhibit P4) goes on to show that he is alleged to have died from a fall in the stairs and the cause of death is mentioned as coma and neurogenic shock. The claim of the defendant-respondent was repudiated on the ground that the deceased had with-held material information in the proposal form for insurance dated 14.09.1984. A perusal of the repudiation letter shows that the Insurance Company has taken a specific stand that the deceased was suffering from giddiness and vertigo for the last 14 years and they had undisputed proof of the same, and therefore, there was a deliberate mis-statement and with-holding of material information. The same reads as under: