High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
LIFE INSURANCE CORPN.OF INDIA,JODHPUR v STATE & ORS. - CW Case No. 2022 of 2005  RD-RJ 809 (8 April 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
LIC of India vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.2022/2005)
DATE OF ORDER ::: APRIL 8, 2005
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA _______________________________________
Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Bhandari, for the respondent.
BY THE COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the present controversy, deceased Phool Chand took life insurance policy from the petitioner on 28.9.2000 which was for the period from the date of policy to 28.9.2016. He paid the premium and the policy was issued by the petitioner. However, in the month of September, 2002, premium was not paid and the policy expired and it was renewed on 17.4.2003. The insured died on 24.5.2003 at his residence. The petitioner denied the benefit of insurance policy on the ground that the deceased obtained the renewal of policy by suppressing his sickness. The widow of deceased submitted a petition before the Permanent Lok
Adalat which was allowed by the Permanent Lok Adalat by order dated 18.12.2004 after rejecting the defence taken by the petitioner.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Permanent Lok Adalat did not gave any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and straightaway on the basis of the complaint and reply, passed the impugned order. It is also submitted that the insured was sick before to get the policy renewed and even he was admitted in the hospital. Later on, on 23.4.2003, the insured left the hospital as his son took him to his house. In the bed head ticket, there is a note appended that the patient left the hospital against the medical advice.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, renewal of policy was issued believing what has been stated by the insured in his renewal application where he clearly stated that he was not suffering from any disease.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is clear from the impugned order dated 18.12.2004 that the Permanent Lok Adalat considered the fact that the insurance policy was originally obtained by the deceased on 28.9.2000 and it continued till 27.9.2002. Thereafter, the premium was not paid because of some financial difficulty but it was renewed on payment of all arrears along with premium from 17.4.2003. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of insured's bed head ticket dated 23.4.2003
(Annex.2) by which the deceased was admitted in the hospital.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there is a mention in the medical report that the deceased was suffering from hypertension and anemia, therefore, it can be presumed that he must not have developed the disease on 23.4.2003 and, therefore, it can be presumed that he was suffering from the disease prior to the date when he submitted the proposal of renewal of the policy on 17.4.2003, only a few days before he was admitted in the hospital and died just after one month from the date of renewal of life insurance policy.
It is clear from the facts mentioned above that the deceased took the policy in the year 2000 and paid premium upto 2002. The policy expired in the year 2002 and he get it renewed in the month of April, 2003. In view of the division bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of
India vs. District Permanent Lok Adalat & Anr. reported in 2004 (3) CDR 1951 (Raj.), it was the duty of the insurance company to cross verify and check the correctness of the facts stated in the proposal form and if the insurance company failed to do so, they cannot deny the benefit of insurance policy after the death of the person.
Apart from the above, if the insurance company would have taken a reasonable care on its part and would have took opinion of the doctor after examination of the proposer, the ailment or sickness, if it was there, would have been noticed by the insurance company and the insurance company would have entered into the contract. In absence of the insured, no finding can be recorded about the conduct of the insured because of the simple reason that there may be possibility that the insured himself may not be knowing about his disease when he submitted insurance proposal. In this case, there is no material available on the record to prove that the deceased was suffering from any such sickness and he had knowledge about his own sickness and he deliberately to defraud the insurance company submitted proposal for coverage of risk by insurance.
The contention of the petitioner that no opportunity to lead evidence was granted by Permanent
Lok Adalat deserves to be rejected only on the ground that no such request was made by the petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat and the petitioner after obtaining order from the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot turn round and find fault in the procedure adopted by the Permanent Lok Adalat without there being an objection of the petitioner for adopting the procedure.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition having no merit, is hereby dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J. s.phophaliya/-
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.