IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1845 of 2005 Smt.Karuna Sinha, W/o Late Narendra Kumar Sinha, R/o Kamta Bhawan Tootwari, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Gaya. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through Finance Ministry, New Delhi. 2. Life Insurance Corporation of India represented through its Zonal Manager, Official Address-Hindustan Building-4, Chitranjan Avenue, Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata-700072. 3. Zonal Manager, L.I.C. of India, Hindustan Building-4, Chitranjan Avenue, Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata-700072. 4. Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mazharul Haque Path, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Patna-1. 5. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch-I, Jeevan Deep Building, Exhibition Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District patna-800001. ……. Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Hare Ram Sah, Advocate. Mr. Tilak Sao, Advocate. For the Union of India: Mr. P.L.Jaiswal, C.G.C. Mr. Vibhaker Kumar, AC to C.G.C. For the LIC : Mr. Umesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Counsel. ----------- 4. 24.01.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation of India as well as learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for release of money under Life Insurance Policy No. 511081669 dated 28.05.1996 (Annexure-1) standing in the name of husband of the petitioner Late Narendra Kumar Sinha (Policyholder), who died on 3.04.1998, with interest on the delayed payment of the said amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also challenges order dated 30.12.1999 (Annexure-4A) by which the authorities of the Life Insurance Corporation of India informed the petitioner that a decision has been taken to repudiate all liability - 2 - under the policy on account of the deceased having withheld material information regarding his health at the time of effecting the assurance with the Corporation. 4. From the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that in the proposal of assurance dated 16.10.1996 there was a specific query bearing Question No. 11 asking the proposer whether he had been suspected of diabetes for which he had replied ‘No’. 5. However, it further transpires that after proposer’s death the authorities enquired into the matter and found that he had been on leave from 03.03.1994 to 08.03.1994 and 15.03.1994 to 18.03.1994 on health ground and the prescription of the doctor dated 03.03.1994 (Annexure-A series at page 18 of the counter affidavit) showed that the doctor advised several investigations including investigation of blood sugar while fasting and P.P., whereafter the petitioner got his blood tested and he was found diabetic vide report dated 5.03.1994 (Annexure-A series at page 16 of the counter affidavit). Furthermore, while noting the client history on 15.03.1994 (Annexure-A series at page 21 of the counter affidavit) the doctor found him to be known diabetes mellitus. 6. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the policy holder was known diabetic since 1994, but this fact had been suppressed by him in proposal for Life Insurance - 3 - Corporation in the year 1996. Accordingly, respondent no. 3 was quite justified in issuing the impugned order as the petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed by her. 7. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sujit (S. N. Hussain, J.)