Decided on September 20,1966

B.V.R.GUPTA Respondents


- (1.)Respondent's father, Venkatappa Setty, had insured his life with the Mysore Government Insurance Department for Rs. 5,750/- under a policy which was issued to him on 25th May, 1955. He dies on 27th day of July,1955, whereafter, his son, the respondent, made a claim for payment of the money. The insurance department of the Government repudiated the liability on the ground that the policy had become void by reason of certain wilfully false statements made by his father in the course of the papers leading up to the issue of the insurance policy. Thereafter, after issuing necessary notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure the respondent filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, to enforce payment of the money due under the policy. The suit was defended by the Life Insurance Corporation of India who by then had taken over the life insurance business till then being carried on by the department of the State Government.
(2.)The principal or the only matter in respect of which the respondent's father, Venkatappa Setty, is stated to have made a false statement was in regard to a certain policy of insurance said to have been taken out by him from another company called " The Oriental Life Insurance Company. A proposal for that policy was made by venkatappa Setty in April,1954, which proposal, it is said, was accepted by the insurance company with a load of Rs. 2 per thousand in the rate of premium. This fact , it was contended, had been deliberately withheld by Venkatappa Setty while making his proposal for the insurance policy concerned in this suit. The proposal in that regard was made by him on 4th April, 1955, under exhibit D-17. Exhibit D-15 is a personal statement made by him in the course of medical examination on the same day and annexed to the proposal,exhibit D-17. The case for the plaintiff-respondent was that his father was not aware of this alleged loading of the premium by the Oriental Life Insurance Company and that, therefore, he cannot be said to have been guilty of making any false statement or deliberately withholding any information any information in the course of either exhibit D-17 or exhibit D-15.
(3.)That the respondent's father, Venkatappa Setty, had made a proposal to the Oriental Insurance Company in April 1954, and that proposal was accepted by that company with a loading of Rs. 2 per thousand in the premium was proved by documents not questioned in evidence and also by the oral evidence of one L.F.C. Vaz examined as D.W. I. That fact is no longer is dispute. But , on the question whether Venkatappa Setty, at the time be signed exhibits D-15 and D-17, knew or did not know the Oriental Insurance Company having loaded his premium, the courts have differed. The trial court held that the evidence established that Venkatappa Setty knew that fact. The lower appellate court, however, has taken a different view and held that evidence had not been let in by the appellant to prove the knowledge of Venkatappa Setty. Hence, the suit that was decreed by the trial court has been dismissed by the lower appellate court.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.