VALSA K.K. Vs. HDFC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ernakulam, dismissing O.P. No.26/2015 filed by her. The Petitioner is a widow. Her husband died on 30/6/2014. The Petitioner along with her husband had availed a loan of Rs.12,60,252.00 from the Respondent No.2/Bank in the year 2013. The husband of the Petitioner had taken Ext.P1 Life Insurance Policy for an amount of Rs.6,30,126.00 as required by the Respondent No.2 under the Master Policy taken by the Respondent No.2 from the Respondent No.1. On the death of her husband, the Petitioner claimed the sum assured under Ext.P1 as the nominee, to settle the loan liability. But the Respondent No.1 repudiated the claim alleging that Ext.P1 Policy was obtained by her husband suppressing the fact of diabetes. The Petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat by filing O.P. No.26/2015 claiming that the reason for repudiation is false and illegal and the alleged suppression is immaterial which is having no nexus with the cause of death of her husband. Before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the Petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked in evidence from her side and the Officer of the Respondent No.1 was examined as RW1 and Exts.R1 to R16 were marked from the side of the Respondent No.1. The Medical records of the husband of the Petitioner summoned from Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry were marked as Exts.X1 and X2.

(2.) The Permanent Lok Adalat found that the husband of the Petitioner committed suicide and that since there is ambiguity on the first part of Ext.P1, i.e., Clause 14 specifically provides that if the suicide is only within the period of one year, the Respondent No.1 can repudiate the claim, and so the repudiation of the claim by the Respondent No.1 is not acceptable. But the Permanent Lok Adalat rejected the claim of the Petitioner finding that the husband of the Petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had been suffering from diabetes mellitus while taking Ext.P1 Policy and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Company Limited [(2009) 8 SCC 316] in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that in a Contract of Insurance, any fact which would influence the mind of an Insurer in deciding whether to accept or not to accept the risk is a 'material fact ', and if the Proposer has knowledge of such fact, he is obliged to disclose it, particularly while answering the questions in the Proposal form, and that any inaccurate answer will entitle the Insurer to repudiate his liability. It is further found that the repudiation of the claim by the Respondent No.1 on the ground of suppression of material fact is legal and sustainable and cannot be interfered with.

(3.) The Respondent No.1 filed Counter Affidavit dtd. 8/2/2022 opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition and supporting Ext.P4 Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat.