KAMLABAI Vs. L I C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shakil Khan, for the appellant. Mr. S.C. Consul, for the respondent.

(2.) Mr. Shakil Khan, Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued by submitting that the husband of appellant was illiterate person and the proposal form was filled in by the agent of the Life Insurance Co. and, therefore, mistakes have been committed. Which have been interpreted to be concealment of the major facts in respect of the proposal of insurance. He submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and, therefore, has landed in error by dismissing the suit of the appellant. He prayed that the said decree be set aside by allowing this appeal.

(3.) Mr. S.C. Consul appearing for the respondent pointed out that at the time of filling in form for insurance proposal, the proposed insured has to answer the questionnaire and he has to give the factual information in respect of his health. He pointed out that Item No. 4 of the said to give the information whether he consulted medical practitioner within five years prior to the date of proposal and in the event of such consultation the proposed insured has to give the information in detail. He further submitted that specific information is to be given by the proposed insured in respect of faintish attacks, pains in chest, breathlessness, palpitration or any disease of the heart. Mr. Consul further pointed out that the proposed insured has to give the information whether prior to the date of proposal he happened to be admitted in the hospital, asylum or sanitorium for checkup, observation, treatment or for operation. Mr. Consul submitted that the deceased did not give proper information while sending proposal of insurance and the death of deceased was within two years and, therefore. Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of insurance to the legal heirs of the deceased in view of provisions of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience). Mr. Consul submitted that the learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence on record as well as the documents properly and has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs.