Judgment · High Court · 2012

On instructions, Mr. Mahanta submits that the late husband of the petiti oner, while opening the policies in question, had withheld material information and so the claims were repudiated, and therefore, the respondent authorities can not, in law, pay back to the petitioner the amount of premium paid by the late h usband of the petitioner. The late husband of the petitioner was working as a Grade-IV employee in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mechanical Sub-Division, Moriga on and he expired on 05-10-1999. For Policy No. 481618176, the amount of premium was Rs. 390/- and he paid the premium from the month of July, 1997 amounting to Rs. 10,530/-. For the other policy, premium of Rs. 560/- was paid from the mont h of July, 1997 till his death, totalling Rs. 15,120/-. Both the claims were repudiated by two separate identical letters dated 22-02-2001 on the ground of withholding material information regarding his healt h at the time of effecting the assurance with them. For better appreciation, it is appropriate to reproduce one of the letters dated 22-02-2001 : (cid:28) GDO/DCL/Repudiation/GBO-II February 22, 2001 Smt. Lily Dewri W/o Late Bimala Dewri, A.S.E.B. Colony, Raha, P.O. : Raha, Dist : Nagaon//Assam// REGISTERED Re : Policy No. 481677267 : Bimala Dewri (Decd) Madam, With reference to your claim under the above policy on the life of your deceased husband, we have to inform you that we have decided to repudiate all li ability under the policy on account of the deceased having withheld material inf ormation regarding his health at the time of effecting the assurance with us. In this connection we have to inform you that the Proposal for Assurance dated 22.05.97/Personal Statement signed by the deceased Assured on 22.05.97 at the time of his medical examination, he had answered the following questions as under-noted :- Questions 11(a) During the last five years did you Consult a Medical Practitioner for any ailment requiring treatment for more than a week? Answer No (b) Have you ever been admitted to any hospital or Nursing home for general check-up, observation, treatment or operation ? (c)Have you remained absent from place of work on grounds of health during the last 5 years ? (d)Are you suffering from or have your ever suffered No No Blood Pressure, Low Blood Pressure, Cancer, Epilepsy, Hernia, Hydrocele, Leprosy or any other disease ? No (e) What has been your usual state of health? Good from Diabetes, Tuberculosis, High We may, however, state that all these answers were false as we hold indi sputable proof to show that about 2 years before he proposed for the above polic y he had suffered from Tuberculosis for which he had consulted a medical man and had taken treatment from him and was on medical leave for 1 year 5 months 20 da ys from 20.07.95 to 10.01.97. He did not however disclose these facts in his Pro posal/Personal Statement. Instead he gave false answers therein as stated above. It is therefore evident that he made deliberate mis-statements and withh eld material information from us regarding his health at the time of effecting t he assurance and hence in terms of the Policy Contract and the Declarations cont ained in the forms of Proposal for Assurance and Personal Statement, we hereby r epudiate the claim and accordingly we are not liable for any payment under the a bove policy and all moneys that have been paid in consequence thereof belong to us. For your information we are enclosing herewith copies of the Proposal an d Personal Statement referred to above. In case, you are not satisfied with the above decision, you may send you r representation for reconsideration of your claim to our Zonal Manager at the f ollowing address within one month. The Zonal Manager, L.I.C of India, Eastern Zonal Office, 4, C.R. Avenue, Calcutta-700072 Yours faithfully, Encl: As stated Sr. Divisional Manager (cid:29) Relying on Annexure-C of the affidavit filed by the respondents, Mr. Mah anta submits that the employer of the deceased had furnished, on request of the respondents, leave applications and medical certificates of late Bimala Deori fo r the period 20-07-95 to 10-01-97. Perusal of the applications for leave applied shows that the late husband of the petitioner had applied for special leave on account of suffering from Tuberculosis. The certificate dated 03-07-96 of the Su b-Divisional Medical Health Officer, I/c District T.B. Centre, Nagaon also indic ates that he was undergoing treatment since 20-07-1995. Though the death certif icate of the late husband of the petitioner is not on record, the Certificate of Employer (Annexure-B to the affidavit) shows that hypertension and respiratory distress caused his immediate absence before death. Inspite of suffering from T uberculosis, the late husband of the petitioner in Column 11 (e) of the proposal for assurance had submitted that he was not suffering from any disease as indic ated therein including Tuberculosis. It was also indicated that in the last 5 ye ars, he did not consult any medical practitioner for any ailments requiring trea tment for more than a week. Though the certificate of Doctor dated 30-07-1996, r eferred to hereinabove, shows that he was undergoing treatment from District T .B. Centre, Nagaon since 20-07-1995, Mr. Sharif had submitted that the late hus band of the petitioner, having read only up to Class-V, was unable to understand the contents of the said forms and had signed the forms in Assamese. In the col umn meant for family history, causes of death and age of his father and mother were also disclosed and, therefore, it is difficult to accept that the late husb and of the petitioner was unaware of the requirements relating to his personal h istory in respect of which in column 11 (i) while stating his usual state of hea lth as good, other columns were answered with a (cid:28)No (cid:29). This assertion is belied by contemporaneous materials on record. It is apparent that material information was not furnished by the late h usband of the petitioner and it goes without saying that assurance is based on ’UBERRIMA FIDES’ (boundless trust or faith ). This clearly not being the case, the respondent authorities were entitled to repudiate the cl aims of the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed.