DWIVEDI, J. - (1.) VAID Mahesh Chandra Shastri is the appellant in this appeal. His wife, who died on May 21, 1959, was called Pushpa Devi. They together obtained two policies of life insurance on their joint lives from the respondent, the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The policies commenced from November 18 and December 28, 1958, respectively. They were for Rs. 10,000 each.
(2.) AFTER the death of his wife, the appellant claimed the amount of the policies from the respondent. He submitted his claim on August 17, 1959. But on July 28, 1961, the respondent repudiated the claim. Hence the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted for the recovery of the amount due under the two policies. The respondent contested the suit on various grounds. The civil judge dismissed the suit. It is unnecessary to reproduce all his findings. The arguments in appeal have converged on three of his findings. And we shall summarise them here : (1) Section 45 of the Insurance Act applies to the case ; (2) Pushpa Devi had more than one conception ; she also had a premature delivery. So she fraudulently made a wrong statement or suppressed truth on material matter ; and (3) the appellant and Pushpa Devi gave incorrect statements as regards the income of the latter. This inaccuracy was on a material matter.
(3.) WE have already disclosed the dates on which the two policies were effected and the date on which the respondent repudiated the claim of the appellant in respect of those policies. The repudiation was obviously made after two years of the dates on which the policies were effected. So we agree with the civil judge that Section 45 did apply to the facts of the case (Mithoolal Nayak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, [1962] 32 Comp. Cas. 177. (S.C.)). According to the counsel for the respondent, Section 45 of the Insurance Act.does not apply, as one of the assured, namely, Pushpa Devi, had died within two years of the dates on which the policies were effected. But the argument runs against the plain words of the section. Moreover, we think that Nayak's case forecloses the argument. So we hold that Section 45 applies to the case. We quote its material portion : '......no policy of life insurance effected after the coming into force of this Act shall, after the expiry of two years from the date on which it was effected, be called in question by an insurer on the ground that a statement made in the proposal for insurance......leading to the issue of the policy, was inaccurate or false, unless the insurer shows that such statement was on a material matter or suppressed facts which it was material to disclose, and that it was fraudulently made by the policyholder and that the policy -holder knew at the time of making it that the statement was false or that it suppressed facts which it was material to disclose.....' ;