IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24479 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BAJAJ ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD., 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ASHOKA PLAZA,CORPORATE SOFTWARE PARK, SURVEY NO.32/3,NAGAR ROAD, VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE, REP.BY BRANCH MANAGER, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.G.LALITHABHAI, PEECHENKURICHIL HOUSE, MUPPATHADOM P.O.,ALUVA. 2. THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, KOCHI, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ASG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).24479/2009 ....................... Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P14 order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman. Ext.P14 came to be passed on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent, the legal representative of one P.D.Sivakumar who had taken a capital unit gain policy for an assured sum of Rs.1 Lakh at an annual premium of Rs.10,000/- by submitting a proposal on 10.1.2007. Sivakumar died on 30.4.2008 due to Toxi Epidermal Necrolysis followed by acute renal failure, while employed as a technician in VTT Technology Services Ltd. 2. A claim made by the 1st respondent, the legal representative, was repudiated on the ground that Sivakumar was suffering from Psoriasis three years prior to the date of his admission in the hospital, that therefore, he must have been suffering from Psoriasis when he submitted the proposal for a policy, but this was not disclosed in the proposal. The contract of Insurance is one of good faith and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to repudiate the same. W.P.(C).24479/09 2 3. Documentary evidence was submitted by both sides. The Insurance Ombudsman referred to the note submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company which affirms the repudiation by stating that the deceased was suffering from Psoriasis for three years. Other documents produced by the Insurance Company were also referred to by the Insurance Ombudsman and it was found that the repudiation was on the ground that the Insured has suppressed the material facts. The Ombudsman considered whether the fact in question was suppressed. 4. The Ombudsman referred to clause 14 of the proposal form containing a query whether the Insurer has been treated similarly for any way of the conditions which are mentioned therein. Answer given is in the negative. Apparently there was no specific query in addition to any skin disease. Reference was made to the certificate produced by the Insurance Company, produced and marked as Ext.P9 in the writ petition wherein the doctor, who treated the insured who was admitted in the Co-operative Medical College, certified W.P.(C).24479/09 3 that the deceased was admitted with Toxi Epidermal Necrolysis and Renal failure. It was further certified that he did not have a lesion of Psoriasis. But he gave a past history of Psoriasis. Duration of the said disease was not mentioned in the said certificate and Ombudsman took note of this materials and found that there is no material to come to the conclusion that the deceased was aware of his affliction, even at the time when he had submitted a proposal in January 2007. It was found that thus, there is no material to show that there was a wilful suppression of material facts by the insured when he had submitted the proposal in January 2007. Nor is there any material to clearly establish any nexus between the condition of Psoriasis and the cause of death or any other material to indicate that the condition would definitely have been revealed to the deceased when he had submitted the proposal for insurance on 22.1.2007. 5. I am in agreement with the conclusions arrived at in this regard by the Ombudsman. Even otherwise the grounds for interference with the finding of the fact by an authority like W.P.(C).24479/09 4 Insurance Ombudsman are limited. This Court does not exercise any appellate jurisdiction. On judicial review, I do not find any grounds for interference with Ext.P14. 6. The claim was only for an amount of Rs.1 Lakh. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the repudiation of the policy in the circumstances, was not justified. For all these reasons, I find that the writ petition is bereft of merit and hence the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs