AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. This is a case of suppression of material medical facts by the insured while obtaining a life insurance policy.
THE learned State Commission held that: "It is proved that the assured was a known diabetic patient, had suffered heart attack was hospitalized and availed leave on several occasions on medical grounds contrary to negative answer given by him on these counts. Since he knew about his ailments very well before giving information in his policy proposal, it amounts to suppression of facts which it was material to disclose, suppression was fraudulently done and assured was aware at the time of giving answer that it was false as laid down in Supreme Court judgment in Mithoolal Nayak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1962 SC 814."
The following chronological events throw adequate light on the dispute: The insured was admitted to Dr. Bhandare Hospital on 8.7.1992. Record of Brief History: Dr. Bhandare Hospital on admission A known diabetic on treatment, had acute chest pain with marked sweating Pulse-100 mm BP 140/90 Heavy smoker Date of discharge-14.7.1992 Date of the life insurance policy-1.11.1992 Proposal for insurance-30.1.1993 Date of death-1.2.1994 Cause of death: Primary cause -Diabetic Nephropathy Secondary cause-Ischaemic heart disease with pulmonary edema with old cerebral haemorrhage.
The insurer had answered in the negative to the following questions in the proposal form: (a) Have you ever suffered from high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, leprosy or any other diseases? (b) During the last 5 years did you consult a medical practitioner for any ailments requiring treatment for more than a week? (c) Have you ever been admitted to any hospital for treatment or check-up?
THE above details indicate the principle of ''res ipsa loquitor''. Accordingly, it is crystal clear that the LIC has proved beyond the doubt that the insurer had suppressed material medical facts while obtaining the life insurance policy. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned State Commission. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.