LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs Naseem Bano

THIS order shall decide above mentioned two cases which are between the same parties and entail the identical questions of facts and law. It may be also mentioned here that both the Fora have given concurrent finding in favour of the respondent Smt. Naseem Bano. Shri Amanullah Khan, since deceased had obtained two policies from LIC of India, the petitioner No. l, each for a sum of Rs. 50,000 on 20th October, 1997. Unfortunately, Shri Amanullah Khan expired on 2nd March, 1998 due to heart failure. The respondent made a claim before the LIC. Her claim was repudiated on 27th March, 1999 due to the following two ailments, firstly, Shri Amanullah Khan was suffering from Diabetic Mellitus since 1996 and secondly, with Hypertension since 1990, which were not disclosed at the time of obtaining the policies.

WE have heard the Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the petitioners argued with vehemence that Shri Amanullah Khan had supressed the above-said two diseases before the LIC. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stressed that had he informed about the above-said diseases, a higher type of medical examination/report would have been sought. The entire case of the respondent LIC revolves around the ''Bed-Head Ticket '' of Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, where the life assured Shri Amanullah Khan, died due to heart failure and it was clearly stated that the deceased was suffering from the above-said two diseases. It was argued that the above-said ''Bed-Head Ticket '' establishes it beyond doubt that the life assured was suffering from various problems at the time of taking the policy and supressed these material facts from the petitioner Corporation. It was also argued that the life assured had concealed material facts and as such the claim of the respondent had been rightly repudiated. In order to buttress his case, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention towards the celebrated authority reported in P.C. Chako & Anr. v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., III (2008) CPJ 78 (SC)=IX (2007) SLT 533=IV (2007) ACC 773 (SC)=IV (2007) CLT 229 (SC)=Civil Appeal No. 5322 of 2007 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23951 of 2005 decided on 20th November, 2007. It was also argued that at the time of filling up of the policy forms, Shri Amanullah Khan, had clearly, specifically and unequivocally, stated that he was not suffering from any disease. To our mind, the evidence adduced by the LIC is exiguous. They should have produced some more material before the Court to prove that the deceased was suffering from these ailments, secondly he was aware of the same and thirdly, he got the treatment for these diseases. It is difficult to say as to who had made statement before the above-said hospital. The ''Bed-Head Ticket '' does not mention the name of any person. Moreover, the ''Bed-Head Ticket '' cannot be the conclusive proof. There is no piece of evidence which may go to show that prior to filling-up of the policy form, record of any hospital, slips of doctors, any prescriptions showing the name of medicines which the deceased must be taking, saw the light of the day. In the absence of those important documents, the position does not begin to jell. Their absence goes to enervate the petitioners '' case. Secondly, the deceased expired due to heart attack. Heart attack has no nexus with the ailments like Diabetic Mellitus and Hypertension.

LASTLY , regarding the above-said authority cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, no parallels can be drawn with the facts of the instant case. In that authority the deceased had undergone the operation for Adenoma Thyroid. The Apex Court found that it was a major operation. The Hon ''ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under: "The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The insured had undergone an operation for Adenoma Thyroid. It was a major operation. Although the said operation was undergone by him four years prior to the date of the proposal made by him, he did not disclose thereabout prior to obtaining the insurance policy. We may notice that he died within six months from the date of taking of the policy i.e. on 6th July, 1987, policy having taken on 21st February, 1987. "

It is, thus, clear that facts of the authority are altogether different from the present case. The above-said authority hardly dovetails with the facts of this case.

THE order passed by the lower Fora does not suffer from any infirmity. The revision petitions are hereby dismissed, but there shall be no orders as to costs. Ordered accordingly.