SURESH P V Vs. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN KOCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Insurance Ombudsman rejecting the complaint against the repudiation of a claim under a Life Insurance Policy in favour of his deceased wife, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that the 2nd respondent had not proved with any reliable evidence that the life assured had fraudulently suppressed any fact which was material to disclose and that at the time of making the statement she had known that the statement was false, the onus of proving which was squarely on the 2nd respondent as per Section 45, since two years had already expired from the date of effecting the policy, at the time of death of the life assured. Therefore, the repudiation by Ext. P-3 and the upholding of the same by Ext. P-5 order of the Insurance Ombudsman are illegal and unsustainable is the contention raised.

(3.) The 2nd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit supporting the impugned order on the ground that the fact of suppression of the material fact is admitted by the petitioner and that insurance being a contract of utmost good faith, the misstatement is sufficient for valid repudiation of the claim, since as per Clause 5 of Ext R-2(a) policy, the policy holder had specifically undertaken that in case it is found that any untrue or incorrect statement is contained in the proposal, personal statement, declaration and connected documents or any material statement is withheld, subject to Section 45, the policy shall be void. They also rely on the preamble to the policy document to buttress their argument. They would submit that they have discharged their onus of proving their contention and even otherwise it is for the petitioner to prove that the suppression was not material and was made bona fide.