GIRJESH KUMARI Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 20.2.1987 (Annexure 2).

(2.) As per the facts stated in the memo of writ petition, Chaturbhuj Pal Yadav (since deceased), husband of the petitioner, who was serving as Station House Officer, on 13.11.1983 made a proposal to insure his life. The proposal for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-was accepted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and a policy bearing No. 5096281 was issued mentioning the petitioner Girjesh Kumari (wife) as the nominee, under Section 39 of the Insurance Act. Late Chaturbhuj Pal Yadav made payments of the premium regularly till his death on 26.4.1986 when he died a natural death. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No. 1 to which a reply was received by her on 25.11.1986 wherein she was assured that the claim was under active consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner received another letter dated 20.2.1987 informing that her claim had been rejected on account of the deceased having withheld material information regarding his health at the time of effecting the insurance with the Corporation. The petitioner then submitted an application to review but with no result in spite of the fact that she was informed vide letters dated 8.8.1987 and 18.8.1987 that the matter was receiving consideration and ultimately, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 2.2.1988. Notices were issued to show cause as to why this writ petition should not be admitted. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been admitted that the last quarterly premium due on 28.2.1986 was paid on 22.2.1986 and it has not been disputed that the deceased died on 26.4.1986, i.e., after 2 years 4 months of the issuance of the policy. An enquiry was conducted from the pension office and the office in which the deceased was employed. It was revealed that deceased was sick from 1980 and he used to remain on leave on medical grounds from January, 1980 to 24th May, 1980, again from 16.6.1980 to 25.11.1980 for diabetes, asthma, eczema and ulcer. In support of the above, the respondents have annexed along with the reply copies of letters addressed by the deceased to the Supdt. of Police, Jaipur, Exhs. R-2 to R-6. Along with the reply, the respondents have also annexed a copy of the proposal form wherein the petitioner did not disclose about his earlier ailments and deliberately concealed these facts which were within his knowledge and answered in negative the columns like 18,19,20,21. Arguments have been heard.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 45 of the Insurance Act which provides that policy cannot be called in question on ground of misstatement after two years and has also cited Daulat Ram v. Bharat Insurance Co. AIR 1973 Delhi 180. He has further submitted that the respondents have utterly failed to discharge the burden of proving that the deceased was guilty of making false representation and suppressing material facts and has drawn my attention to Life Insurance Corporation of India v. G.M. Channabasamma 1991 ACJ 303 (SC).