TARABEN MANSUKHLAL PALA Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Mehul S.Shah, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri H.M.Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) A woman, who suffered widowhood in the year 1973 is before this Court in the year 2006 with a plea that a paltry sum of Rs. 5,000/- to which she was entitled under the insurance policy be allowed in her favour and the respondent Life Insurance Corporation be asked to make payment of the money.

(3.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that one Mansukhlal Chunilal Pala of Jamnagar opted for life insurance policy for sum of Rs. 5,000/-, the policy was issued in favour of the deceased on 8.8.73 under the concluded contract. Unfortunately, the said Mansukhlal Chunilal Pala died on 20.12.73, i.e., within a period of four months and 12 days from the date of issuance of the policy. The widow, who was hapless and helpless, relying upon the assurances of the Corporation, lodged her claim, after some good hassle and the inquiries, the respondent-Corporation repudiated the claim on 28.5.75 stating inter alia that the proposal form submitted by the deceased contained mis-statements of facts, material facts were suppressed and the facts which had material bearing on the contract were also suppressed. They accordingly rejected the claim. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the conduct of the insurer filed Regular Civil Suit No. 717 of 1976. On notice, the respondent-Corporation appeared in the court and showed its benevolence by contesting the litigation tooth and nail, its logo "Yogakshemam Vahamyaham" which was translated in different words by saying that Mam Anusmar Yuddhyacha "remember me and fight". They filed their written statement raising various pleadings including the plea that material facts were suppressed, the proposal could be repudiated within two years either for no reason or for some reason. The learned trial court, after casting issues granted proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the parties accordingly led the evidence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit. The respondent-Corporation did not accept the said judgment with grace, but thought prudent to file an appeal against the said judgment so that the big amount of Rs.5,000/- could be saved in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation. They wanted assurance in their favour that they are not required to make the payment and that the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. The assurances given to the common public or the policy holders proved futile and the present appellant-plaintiff was required to appear before the learned first appellate court to contest the litigation.