GOPARATNAM Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the complainant before the State Commission where she had filed complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India - The brief facts of the case are that the complainant's late husband had taken five insurance policies, details of which are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_78_CPJ1_2006_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The basic facts are not disputed that the policy No. I and 3 listed above were under lapsed condition due to non-payment of premium but admittedly revived on 21.01.1995 and 23.08.1995 respectively. Husband of the first appellant died on 19.09.1996. When the claim was not settled, a complaint was tiled before the State Commission which after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved of this order the present appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that the respondent has already made payment in respect of one policy issued on 28.09.1993. It is non-payment in respect of four other policies, two of which were revived on the dates mentioned above and the two policies listed at serial Nos. 4 and 5. which are the subject matter of dispute before us. It was the case of the respondent before the State Commission that the deceased suppressed the information about his ailments like Typhoid and other ailments thus breaching the terms of the policy. There is no disputing the fact that the deceased died on account of AIDS. The learned Counsel For the appellant was candid enough to admit that the deceased was aware of the ailments like Typhoid and other diseases in 1994. His argument is that the policies which were issued in 1988 and 1992, even though revived in January and (sick matter) at the time the information given on health status will date back to the date of original application before the commencement of the policies. For this he wanted to rely on the (sick matter) settled on the subject that once the policy is revived after it being lapsed, at the time of renewal/revival a person has to get the fresh medical certificate giving out his health status afresh on that date. The benefits will date back but he has to satisfy afresh about his health status. Since, as admitted by the appellant that they were aware of the ailments like Typhoid in 1994, not giving this information at the time of revival of the policy would amount to deliberate suppression of the information which was within the knowledge of the deceased. section 45 of the Insurance Act becomes applicable only when the information is given in a new format and that is challenged after a period of two years. only then this section comes into force. But this is not the case here. The information with regard to policies No. I, 3, 4 and 5 were given in January, 1995, February, 1995 and March, 1996, when the knowledge of the ailments/diseases were well known and within the knowledge of the deceased in 1994. Hence, section 45 of the Insurance Act (sic) appellant complainant in this case. The material on record indicates that the answers given by the deceased and the seven questions relating to the previous ailments (sic) admitted position of law that contract of life insurance is a contract of good faith. Violation of it by any of the party ousts its claim against the other. In this case of the appellant has suppressed the information both at the time of revival of the two policies and obtaining two policies at serial Nos. 4 and 5. Accordingly, we find no ground to take a view different from the one taken by the State Commission. There is no merit in the appeal filed before its hence dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Appeal Dismissed.