NARMADABAI CHOUHAN Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29-9-2006 passed by 3rd additional District Judge, (Fast Track), Barwani, in Civil Suit No. 22-B/05, whereby suit filed by appellants was dismissed, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that appellants filed a suit on 16-6-05 for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,14,000/- alleging that appellants are widow and sons of deceased Radheshyam Chouhan who died on 4-8-04 at District Hospital, barwani. It was alleged that in his life time, deceased Radheshyam got himself insured for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 vide Policy No. 341807159, dated 28-6-2003. It was alleged that for the purpose of insurance deceased Radheshyam submitted a proposal form on 15-7-2003 and after accepting the premium of Rs. 9,295/- the policy was issued. It was alleged that policy issued by the respondents was endowment policy with benefits. Further case of the appellants was that after issuance of the policy regular premium was paid by the deceased Radheshyam in his life time. It was alleged that after his death appellants submitted the claim form along with all relevant documents. Claim submitted by appellants, was repudiated by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 24-12-04 on the ground, that at the time of insurance, assured concealed the material facts and made some false statements regarding his health in the proposal form. It was also mentioned in the said order whereby claim was repudiated, that if the appellants are not satisfied with the decision of respondent No. 2 then appellants are free to approach respondent No. 1 for review of the order. It was alleged that thereafter appellants issued legal notice whereby appellants claimed for payment of compensation along with interest. In spite of notice the amount was not paid hence the suit was filed for a sum of Rs. 1,14,000/-, out of it Rs. 12,000/-were claimed towards interest from the date of submission of claim form along with notice charges.

(3.) THE suit was contested by respondents by filing written statement wherein it was not disputed that the policy was issued by respondents. However, it was alleged that the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation as the deceased has not given true and correct answers to the questionnaire put to insured. It was alleged that in the investigation, it was found that deceased Radheshyam, before submitting the proposal form for his insurance on 15th July, 2003, was on leave from June, 2000 to November, 2000 for a period about 165 days in four instalments. Out of which deceased radheshyam was on leave from 7th August to 2nd October, 2000 for about 57 days on medical leave on the ground that he was suffering from IDDMM with ihd disease. It was also alleged that again medical leave was granted to him from 3rd September, 2002 to 31 st October, 2002 for a period of about 59 days on the account that the deceased was suffering with IDDMM with IHD. It was alleged that on 15th July, 2003, when the proposal form was submitted the deceased was asked about his health which was answered by him as under:-