NAI KANTIBHAI MAGANLAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original complainant who has admittedly taken insurance of his buffalo. It is also on record that the offer was accepted and the policy was granted to him.

(2.) That the buffalo died during the pendency of the insurance policy and the post mortem was made but the report of post mortem does not disclose any disease to the buffalo. Only fact mentioned in the report was that the buffalo was weak. Naturally, when the buffalo dies on account of some unknown illness it is supposed be weak on the date when the post mortem was made. Mr. Panchal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company is not producing even the copy of the policy. It is very important insofar as the averment of the opponent is concerned stating that there was a breach of the condition of the Policy but the condition has not been either produced in the judgment nor has been shown to us. In the circumstances we find that the judgment of the District Forum is based upon not very weak foundation. When the insurance is admitted the burden to prove that the materia1 disclosure was not made by the proposer or on the date when the insurance was taken the buffalo was suffering from any disease is upon the Insurance Company. It has now been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIC V/s. Smt. G. M. Channabasamma, 1991 AIR(SC) 392 that the burden of proving that the insured had made false representations and suppressed material facts is on the Corporation.

(3.) In the aforesaid view of the matter we are not in a position to agree with the judgment of the District Forum.