WP(C) 5239/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Nan di, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The repudiation of the claim for Insurance dues following the death of t he petitioner’s husband Late Purna Bahadur Lama (hereinafter referred to as ins ured ) by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) authorities have led to filing th e instant petition. 3. During his life time, the insured, who was an employee of the Tirap Coil lery, obtained two LIC policies, one Bima Kiran Policy bearing No. 440741119 and another Endowment Policy bearing No. 440745683. The proposal for opening the po licy was accepted by the LIC authorities and the requisite premium for the polic y was being paid until the insured died on 25.2.01. 4. Following the death of the insured, the petitioner made a claim against the two policies and in respect of the endowment policy, the LIC authorities pai d the dues of Rs.61,644/- (Rupees sixty-one thousand six hundred forty--four onl y) to the petitioner(wife). 5. But in respect of the Bima Kiran Policy, by the communication dated 29.1 .02 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager of LIC, Jorhat, the petitioner was i nformed that the LIC authorities have decided to repudiate the claim on the grou nd that material information(s) regarding the health condition of the insured wa s withheld at the time of effecting the policy. This communication dated 29.1.02 (Annexure-G), conveyed that at the time of furnishing the proposal, the insured failed to disclose, inter alia, that he had suffered from cirrhosis of liver fo r which he was under treatment. 6. A complain was thereafter given to the Insurance ombudsman but the decis ion of repudiation of the claim was upheld by the Insurance ombudsman. 7. It is argued by Mr. Chetri , learned counsel for the petitioner that whe n two separate policies were executed by the Insurance Company, basing on simila r information furnished by the insured, it was not appropriate for the responde nts to allow the claim in respect of the Endowment Policy and refusing to enter tain the claim for the Bima Kiran Policy. It is further submitted that the medi cal information allegedly withheld by the insured at the time of the proposal if accepted to be a bonafide ground for repudiating claim, the respondents could n ot have adopted a contradictory stand, while entertaining the claim against, the two policies. 8. Appearing for the respondents, it is argued by Mr. Nandi that apart from the withholding of information on the health condition(s) of the insured, incor rect date of birth was furnished at the time of the proposal and accordingly thi s is contended as an additional ground for not entertaining the claim against th e Bima Kiran Policy. The learned counsel submits that the Bima Kiran Policy was a low premium policy where the maximum age of entry is 35 years and since there is difference in the age mentioned in the proposal form(s) for both the policies , the respondents were justified in repudiating the claim. 9. The learned counsel further submits that discrepancy in the age in the t wo policies came to light only after the death of the insured and he submits tha t policy proposal was accepted and premium were received for the Bima Kiran Poli cy, on the basis of the age declaration made by the insured. 10. I find in this case that at the time when the claim in respect of the Bi ma Kiran Policy was repudiated through communication dated 21.9.02, the only gro und cited for such refusal was the misstatement with regard to the health condit ion(s) of the insured. No reference to any age discrepancy was made in the said communication. 11. But it must be borne in mind that when that communication was made, the LIC authorities were aware of the two policies of the insured and the age mentio ned in the Endowment Policy as also in the Bima Kiran Policy were within the inf ormation of the LIC authorities. Notwithstanding such knowledge, the claim again st the Endowment Policy was honoured on 24.5.01 without citing any objection eit her on age or health information furnished by the insured, whereas the claim aga inst the Bima Kiran Policy was repudiated on 29.1.02 on the sole ground of withh olding health related information. 12. At a later stage and in the counter affidavit, the respondents pleaded t he additional ground of discrepancy on the age of the insured, in the two polici es. If age was such a vital factor for the Bima Kiran Policy, the respondents ou ght to have taken care to ensure that the policy was refused to an overaged pers on or they should have cited this as a ground for objection when it repudiated t he claim against the Bima Kiran Policy. But the repudiation, as is already recor ded, was made only on suppression of the health information(s) of the insured an d not on the age ground. 13. If the health information(s) of the insured is not considered to be a va lid ground for repudiation of a Life Insurance claim in respect of the Endowment Policy, this Court finds it difficult to understand as to how this ground can b e urged while repudiating the claim against the Bima Kiran Policy. 14. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the communicat ion dated 29.1.02 (Annexure-G) cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly q uashed. 15. In so far as the additional ground pleaded in the counter affidavit rela ting to the discrepancy in the age of the insured, I find that this additional g round is an afterthought and should not be allowed to be pleaded by the responde nts to deny the claim. When the LIC authorities wrote the letter dated 29.1.02 r epudiating the claim, they were in a position to consider all aspects of the cla im including the age of the insured. Yet they refused the claim on the sole grou nd of suppressing health related information of the insured and no other ground was cited at that time. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion tha t an additional ground cannot be permitted to be urged subsequently, to justify the rebuttal of the claim made. 16. For the forgoing reasons, I allow this petition by directing the respond ents to forthwith make payment of the claim in respect of the Bima Kiran Policy No. 440741119. Due amount including the vested bonus be paid to the petitioner on or before 1.10.2010. 17. The petition stands allowed accordingly.