1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 142 of 2007 ( The Divisional Manager L.I.C. & another Versus Shrikrishna Laxman Sirsat) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. Deshpande, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 7 th July, 2008 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the husband of one deceased Maya on the ground that the insurance claim of deceased Maya was rejected without any lawful reason, and hence, the plaintiff sought a decree for recovery of amount of Rs.50,000/- being the insurance amount towards insurance policy with interest thereon. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendants had wrongfully turned down the claim of the plaintiff by informing the plaintiff that while forwarding the proposal, deceased Maya had not truthfully submitted 2 the information that she was suffering from high blood pressure and except two premiums in the months of September and October, other premiums remained to be paid. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that deceased Maya was expected to truthfully disclose about her ailment at the time of submitting her proposal but, she had not disclosed it. It was further pleaded by the defendants that the monthly premium which was required to be paid by the insured, was not paid by the insured, as a result of which,the policy lapsed, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek a decree for recovery of amount. Both the Court concurrently held that the defendants had failed to prove that there was any fraudulent concealment of material facts at the time of forwarding the proposal. The Courts further held that the defendants failed to adduce any cogent and reliable evidence to prove that deceased Maya was suffering from severe hypertension even before the submission of the proposal. The 3 Courts further recorded a finding that the repudiation was informed to the plaintiff for the first time when the plaintiff had put forth his claim before the defendants. The Courts also held that both the policies of deceased Maya were valid and were in existence at the time of her death, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum thereon with effect from 01.02.1988 till its realisation. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE