Case: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Bibi Padmawati

doctor who might have attended on Diwan Balkishan during his stay in the hospital has been produced. Besides the very fact that Diwan Balkishan was in the hospital for such a short time indicates that he could hardly have been suffering from any such serious ailment as tuberculosis of lungs. Further, Diwan Balkishan would not have access to this register and, therefore, these entries would not prove that he knew what he was suffering from in the absence of evidence that somebody told him during these two occasions when he was in the hospital what he was suffering from. Therefore, even assuming that Dr. Amir-ud-Dins evidence can be accepted (though, as already indicated, we think that the trial courts estimate of that evidence was more correct), we agree with the High Court that it has not been proved that Diwan Balkishan knew that he had been suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis when he made the revival applications in 1948. As the High Court has rightly pointed out there was no evidence of outward symptoms which would have shown that Diwan Balkishan knew that he was suffering from tuberculosis. Further, we agree with the High Court that if Diwan Balkishan was really suffering from tuberculosis and knew about it he would never have allowed the policies to lapse, for, then, he might be subjected to further medical examination. Lastly, the fact that there was no medical examination again when the policies were revived show that there was nothing outwardly wrong with Diwan Balkishan as otherwise the company would never have revived the policies without re-examination. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that, on the facts of this case, it cannot be said that Diwan Balkishan was suffering from tuberculosis of the lungs or any other serious disease when he applied for revival in 1948 or knew that he was7. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the application for revival in which Diwan Balkishan declared that he had had no "sickness, ailment or injury" after the policies were issued to him and that he was of sound constitution and temperate habits and in good health. The form also provided that if any of the statements or representations contained therein proved to be incomplete or untrue then the revival would be ipso facto null and void. It is said that Diwan Balkishan was admitted to the hospital twice in 1945 and, therefore, his statement that he had no "sickness, ailment or injury" after the policies were issued to him was untrue, and so the revival would be void. this argument is met by the respondent by clause 4 of the policy relating to indisputability. That clause provided that "a policy after the expiry of two years from the date on which it is effected becomes indisputable except when the company shows that a statement made in the proposal for assurance or in any statement made in the proposal for assurance or in any statement made before a medical examiner or a referee or a friend of the assured or in any other document leading to the issue or revival of the policy, on a material matter, was fraudulently made by the policy-holder and that the policy-holder knew at the time of making it that the statement was false." Now this clause clearly shows that the policy becomes indisputable after the expiry of two years from the date on which it is effected, i.e., the date on which it was originally issued. In the present case the two-year period from the date the policies were originally issued had expired before the death. This clause also covers the case of revival, for it covers any statement made in any document relating to revival of the policy. But it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the clause would only apply if two years pass after the revival for revival amounts to novation of the contract of insurance. Now the revival receipt has not been produced and it is not possible to say whether the revival of the policies (even though it may amount to novation for certain purposes) was not form the dates on which the policies were originally effected. If they were revived from the date the policies were originally effected and, in the absence of the revival receipts, we must hold it to be so, the fourth clause would apply to the revived policies from the date they were effected and not from the date of revival, and in that case two years have to be counted from the date the policies were effected. We have already held that there was no fraud on the part of Diwan Balkishan and two years having passed from the date the policies were effected, the indisputability clause will apply and it is not open to the appellant to dispute the policies when fraud or misrepresentation has not been proved8. Besides we agree with the High Court that merely because the revival application did not mention that Diwan Balkishan was admitted to the hospital twice in 1945 is of no effect for the evidence in this case fails to prove that there was anything seriously wrong with Diwan Balkishan when he was admitted to the hospital on those occasions. When the revival form speaks of "sickness, ailment or injury", these words must be interpreted to include only more serious disorders leaving a permanent mark upon the insureds health; passing ailments or disorders are not considered by the court to be material to the risk. Unless, therefore, it could be proved that Diwan Balkishan was afflicted with a serious ailment or disease during the period after the insurance policies had been issued and before the revival applications were made, the mere fact that he did not mention any passing ailment or disorder which might have necessitated his going to the hospital twice for short periods would not show that his statement in the revival applications was false to the extent of making the revival void.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It was conceded before the Highn our opinion,there was no evidence whatever to suggest that there was any fraud or misrepresentation as to the state of his health by Diwan Balkishan in 1944 before he took out the two policies in September and November,seems to us that, in these circumstances, the High Court need not have differed from the trial courts estimate of the value of Dr.The only other evidence on which stress has been laid is the entries in the admission register of patients. It appears that Diwan Balkishan was admitted to the hospital twice in 1945, once on February 21, 1945, and second time on April 17, 1945. The High Court has held that these entries are inadmissible. They certainly show the disease from which Diwan Balkishan was suffering as tuberculosis of lungs. It may be added that on the first occasion Diwan Balkishan remained in the hospital for seven days and on the second for five days. Even if these entries are admissible, we doubt if they are of any value in establishing that Diwan Balkishan was suffering from tuberculosis. The procedure for making these entries in the admission register has not been proved and no doctor who might have attended on Diwan Balkishan during his stay in the hospital has been produced. Besides the very fact that Diwan Balkishan was in the hospital for such a short time indicates that he could hardly have been suffering from any such serious ailment as tuberculosis of lungs. Further, Diwan Balkishan would not have access to this register and, therefore, these entries would not prove that he knew what he was suffering from in the absence of evidence that somebody told him during these two occasions when he was in the hospital what he was suffering from. Therefore, even assuming that Dr.evidence can be accepted (though, as already indicated, we think that the trial courts estimate of that evidence was more correct), we agree with the High Court that it has not been proved that Diwan Balkishan knew that he had been suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis when he made the revival applications in 1948. As the High Court has rightly pointed out there was no evidence of outward symptoms which would have shown that Diwan Balkishan knew that he was suffering from tuberculosis. Further, we agree with the High Court that if Diwan Balkishan was really suffering from tuberculosis and knew about it he would never have allowed the policies to lapse, for, then, he might be subjected to further medical examination. Lastly, the fact that there was no medical examination again when the policies were revived show that there was nothing outwardly wrong with Diwan Balkishan as otherwise the company would never have revived the policies withoutWe, therefore, agree with the High Court that, on the facts of this case, it cannot be said that Diwan Balkishan was suffering from tuberculosis of the lungs or any other serious disease when he applied for revival in 1948 or knew that hethis clause clearly shows that the policy becomes indisputable after the expiry of two years from the date on which it is effected, i.e., the date on which it was originally issued. In the present case theperiod from the date the policies were originally issued had expired before the death. This clause also covers the case of revival, for it covers any statement made in any document relating to revival of the policy. But it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the clause would only apply if two years pass after the revival for revival amounts to novation of the contract of insurance. Now the revival receipt has not been produced and it is not possible to say whether the revival of the policies (even though it may amount to novation for certain purposes) was not form the dates on which the policies were originally effected. If they were revived from the date the policies were originally effected and, in the absence of the revival receipts, we must hold it to be so, the fourth clause would apply to the revived policies from the date they were effected and not from the date of revival, and in that case two years have to be counted from the date the policies were effected. We have already held that there was no fraud on the part of Diwan Balkishan and two years having passed from the date the policies were effected, the indisputability clause will apply and it is not open to the appellant to dispute the policies when fraud or misrepresentation has not been proved8. Besides we agree with the High Court that merely because the revival application did not mention that Diwan Balkishan was admitted to the hospital twice in 1945 is of no effect for the evidence in this case fails to prove that there was anything seriously wrong with Diwan Balkishan when he was admitted to the hospital on those occasions. When the revival form speaks of "sickness, ailment or injury", these words must be interpreted to include only more serious disorders leaving a permanent mark upon the insureds health; passing ailments or disorders are not considered by the court to be material to the risk. Unless, therefore, it could be proved that Diwan Balkishan was afflicted with a serious ailment or disease during the period after the insurance policies had been issued and before the revival applications were made, the mere fact that he did not mention any passing ailment or disorder which might have necessitated his going to the hospital twice for short periods would not show that his statement in the revival applications was false to the extent of making the revival