Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. We have heard the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed on record.

5. The certificate given by the hospital where he was last treated, states that the insured was brought in an unconscious state and died the same day of Bronchial Asthma. The certificate further mentions that as per the history given, he had asthma for the last 2 months.

6. The respondent LIC obtained the medical leave records of the insured from the employer. As per the medical certificate of Dr. Prafull Jain, given by the insured to his employer, the doctor has certified that he was under his treatment from 14.10.06 to 31.10.06 for COPD with Pyrexia. The veracity of this certificate has not been challenged by the appellant. It evidences that the insured had been diagnosed with COPD in 2006.

7. Medical literature gives the information that COPD or Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a progressive disease that makes it hard to breathe and the disease gets worse over time. COPD has no cure yet and doctors don't know how to reverse the damage to the airways and lungs. It is one of the leading causes of death. Having being diagnosed with COPD in 2006, it was incumbent on the insured to inform the LIC about the disease at the time of taking the policy.

8. The insured again took long leave on medical grounds from 3.7.07 to 25.7.07. However, to the specific questions as to whether he had taken treatment for any disease for more than a week and whether he had to take any medical leave in the last 5 years, he has replied in the negative. It is a clear case of suppression of a serious disease, a material fact that would have bearing on the risk involved. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the LIC in repudiating the claim.

11. The onus lay on the LIC to show that the statement which was suppressed by the insured was material to disclose and was fraudulently made. The LIC have filed the certificate clearly showing that the insured was suffering from COPD. By suppressing the disease, which ultimately caused his death in 2010, the insured suppressed material facts. It cannot be said to be a mere misstatement as it was very relevant to the proposal. Further, the insured suppressed the fact that he had taken treatment for more than 14 days for the disease. It cannot be said that he was not aware that he had been treated for a lung problem for which he had to take a long leave. In the overall picture, the suppression appears to be fraudulently made on a fact which was material to disclose. Hence, he cannot be given the benefit of Section 45 of the Insurance Act.