IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 RSA.No. 341 of 2006() --------------------- AS.196/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.321/1998 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------- LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE REP. BY ITS MANAGER (L & H.P.F.), L.I.C. OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT: PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------ SMT. GIRIJA, W/O. LATE K0VATH KRISHNANKUTTY, NENMANIKARA VILLAGE, PAZHAYI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON 24/11/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS J., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.S.A. No. 341 of 2006 G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T This second appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 321 of 1998 on the file of Principle Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. Respondent herein was the plaintiff in that suit which was filed by her for recovery of money due under an Insurance Policy. 2. The averments in the plaint in O.S. No. 321 of 1998 are briefly as follows. The plaintiff's husband deceased Krshnankutty has taken an L.I.C. policy on 11.2.1993. He has paid the premium and that was confirmed. He died on 8.11.1994. The plaintiff is the nominee and the legal representative. She has applied for claiming the insurance amount and all the records for the same were produced before the Insurance Company. But the Insurance company has not given the amount. At last the plaintiff received a R.S.A. No. 341 of 2006 -: 2 :- notice of repudiating the claim from the defendant stating that her husband wilfully suppressed the material facts regarding his health. So they rejected the insurance claim amount. Subsequently plaintiff issued a lawyer notice. A reply notice was sent by the defendant stating that L.I.C. is not liable to pay the amount for the reason of suppression of material facts. So the plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of the amount from the defendant company. 3. The defendant filed written statement contending as follows. The husband of the plaintiff suppressed and withheld the information regarding his health and illness in Column No.II(a) to (e) in proposal form. The death happened within 2 years. Since the death was happened within two years, L.I.C. conducted enquiries through its machinery. On a perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that life assured suppressed material facts regarding the health and illness which he is duty bound to disclose. Since the plaintiff's husband had suppressed the material facts the LI.C. amount cannot be given to the claimant/plaintiff. So the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. R.S.A. No. 341 of 2006 -: 3 :- 4. In the Munsiff Court, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to 5 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and on the side of the defendant DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to 3 were marked. 5. The learned Munsiff on considering the evidence , decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realise a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with 6% interest from 9.1.96 till realisation and costs from the defendant and its assets. Against that judgment and decree the defendant filed an appeal before the First Addl. District Court, Thrissur as A.S. No.196 of 2003 which was dismissed confirming judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court. Against that judgment the appellant filed this second appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the basis of available evidence, oral and documentary, the lower Court ought to have found that policy of the insured and subsequent claim were repudiated by appellant on valid grounds. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there was ample evidence to R.S.A. No. 341 of 2006 -: 4 :- prove that respondent's husband suppressed material facts like having disease and admission to hospital for surgery and that material facts were fraudulently and deliberately suppressed. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgments of the Courts below. 8. It is an admitted fact that the respondent's husband late Krishnankutty has taken a Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.1 lakh on 11.2.1993 and that he paid the premium amounts without committing any default until his death and that the policy was confirmed prior to the death of life assured. The appellant/ defendant contended that in the proposal form filed by the respondent's husband late Krishnankutty, he suppressed several material facts regarding the illness. The appellant also relied on the certificate issued by the employer of the respondent's husband and submitted that he was absent from duty since he entered on medical leave on various periods as referred to in that certificate. 9. DW1 who is the administrative officer of the defendant Corporation in cross-examination admitted that at the time of filing R.S.A. No. 341 of 2006 -: 5 :- of the application for policy by the husband of the respondent, he produced a medical certificate from the authorised medical officer of the Insurance Company and that in that medical certificate it was certified that he was healthy and he can join in that policy. DW1 further admitted that it was after confirmation of the policy, the husband of the respondent died. DW1 further admitted that he had not produced the certificate issued by the authorised doctor before the Court and no disease was noted in that certificate. It has further come out in the cross examination of DW1 that 2 officers of the appellant company made enquiries regarding illness of the deceased from respective hospitals and two reports were prepared. But those reports were not produced before the Court. 10. Ext.B2 is the certificate issued by the employer of the husband of the plaintiff/respondent which would show that late husband of the plaintiff was on medical leave for certain periods. But the defendant/appellant could not produce any medical records to show that late husband of the plaintiff was suffering from any serious illness. R.S.A. No. 341 of 2006 -: 6 :- 11. The learned Munsiff and learned Addl. District Judge based on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Smt. Asha Goel and another (A.I.R. 2001 SC 549) found that merely on the ground that the deceased had withheld correct information regarding health at the time of effecting insurance with Life Insurance Corporation of India, it was not proper to repudiate the contract. Since that finding of both the Courts below of facts is supported by evidence, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with that finding in the second appeal. Accordingly this second appeal is dismissed as it is without any merits. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this second appeal. M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/