Life Insurance Corporation of India vs BIDYA DEVI

THIS appeal has been preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation, Rohtak Branch against the order of District Forum, Rohtak dated 26th of May, 1995, by which the complaint filed by the widow Smt. Bidya Devi and two minor sons of Jagdish claiming the insured money of Rs. 20,000/- has been allowed.

JAGDISH got himself insured with the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation in March, 1991. After his expiry on 6th of February, 1992, claimants Smt. Bidya Devi and her two minor sons approached the L.I.C. for the payment of insured money of Rs. 20,000/-. But the L.I.C. refused to pay the amount on the ground that the deceased had suppressed the material fact of his illness at the time he got himself insured. Thereupon the Complainants invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Rohtak and in the written statement filed by the Opposite Party the same plea was reiterated i.e. that there was a suppression of the material fact about his illness by the insured-JAGDISH at the time he took out the policy. Learned District Forum, however, after examining the record and the medical check up report of the deceased, came to the conclusion that there was no suppression of any illness by the insured.

Before us in appeal, Mr. B.J. Singh, learned Counsel has contended, invoking to his aid citations referred to in the order of the learned District Forum that the death of insured Jagdish had taken place within a year of the insurance. This fact alone, according to the learned Counsel, was good enough to cast a shadow of doubt on the bonafides and good faith of the insured. So far as the illness is concerned, all what he has been able to bring to our notice is that there was pain in the abdomen of Jagdish prior to, the taking the insurance.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel at length and having gone through the authorities cited by him, we are of the considered view that reference or disclosure of every ailment major or minor is not necessary to be brought to the notice of the Insurance Company at the time an insured takes out the insurance policy. The ratio of the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that if there is suppression or non-disclosure of material ailment and the insured soon after the insurance dies of the ailment, he was suffering from or taking treatment of, the L.I.C. would be justified in repudiating the claim. But none of these factors are present in the case in hand. The insured Jagdish was only having pain in his abdomen prior to his taking insurance and it was of that ailment that he had taken treatment that is why the medical checkup by the Doctor appointed by the L.I.C. at the time the insurance policy was taken, no other major or minor ailment was noticed. Beyond this, there is no other evidence whatsoever produced by the L.I.C. for our consideration. Consequently, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum, hence uphold the same and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.