- (1.) The petition dated March 5, 1965, I have now been called upon to decade is one for amendment of an unusual plaint presented to this Court on December 21, 1962. An unusual plaint, because the relief the plaintiff prays the court for is a decree for Rs.10,280 on the foot of a life policy taken by his deceased brother (whose nominee he is) from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, (shortened hereafter into "lic" as far as possible), but the parties sued against are A. L. Dutta, Zonal Manager of LIC, the Managing Director and the Chairman of LIC, the last two being represented by the said A. L. Dutta, although under section 3 (2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act 31 of 1956 LIC is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and may by its name sue and be sued. What is worse still, the three defendants by their written statement filed on April 26, 1963, pleaded just this: LIC is a body corporate and may by its name be sued (paragraph 1) and pleaded too the non-maintainability of the suit because of absence of a contract between them and the plaintiff, lack of cause of action against them, and the impossibility of the Managing Director and the Chairman being sued by their designations (paragraph 25 ). Even such clear and categorical averments failed to galvanize the plaintiff into action. Only when the suit came up before me for hearing on February 16, 1965, and Mr. Bachawat appearing for the defendants raised the preliminary objection of the type just noticed about the maintainability of the suit, the plaintiff realized what he was up against. And on the prayer of Mr. Bagchi appearing for the plaintiff I directed the suit to go out of the list so that such steps as were thought fit might be taken for amendment of the plaint. Not that I had directed so suo motu, as has been averred by implication in the fifth paragraph of the petition under consideration. This is the background of the petition for amendment of the plaint.
(2.) The amendments sought for are-A. In the cause title, (i)Managing Director, now figuring as defendant no.2, be struck out, leaving behind Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, bombay, represented by the said a. L. Dutta, Zonal Manager etc. and (ii) Chairman with the usual long description, now figuring as defendant no.3, be struck out too. B. In the body of the plaint, (i) a new paragraph is sought to be inserted as paragraph 8a the pith of which is that in the course of correspondence between the parties, the last of which is dated August 10/11, 1961, LIC acknowledged the liability and admitted the existence of the jural relationship between the parties as that of debtor and creditor ; (ii) in paragraph 9 what is wanted to be inserted is that lic repudiated the claim, by a certain letter referred to therein, the in place and stead of the words-failed to make payments for the plaintiff's claim ; and (iii) in paragraph 14 a consequential amendment is prayed for touching the service of notice under section 80 of the Procedure Code.
(3.) About the amendment of the cause title, Mr. Bagchi sees in it a mere misdescription; whereas Mr. Bachawat sees in it an addition of a party. In order to decide what the amendment sought realty comes to, it is necessary to see what the plaint before me is like. On November 8, 1959, the plaintiff's brother, late Purna Sudha Roy, made a proposal for insurance on his own Life for Rs.10,000 with LIC (paragraph 1 ). The plaintiff was made the nominee in the said proposal "in the event of the death of the insured" (paragraph 2 ). After medical examination by a medical officer of LIC and submission of a personal statement by the assured on November.27, 1958, the proposal was accepted by LIC who acknowledged the payment of the first premium on December 31, 1958, and issued the policy (paragraphs 3 and 4 ). LIC accepted too the second premium on March 26, 1959, (paragraph5 ). On June 6, 1959, the assured died. Result. LIC became liable to pay the plaintiff, the assureds nominee, the sum insured (paragraph 6 ). A claim having been made to that end, LIC acknowledged on September 22, 1959, the receipt of "the completed claim forms and accompanying papers" (paragraphs 7 and 8 ). On November 21, 1961, LIC through its Divisional Officer failed to make the payment-words for which the words-repudiated the claim-are sought to be inserted. On June 22, 1962, "the plaintiff made a final demand" through his "lawyer" whose letter was acknowledged by LIC on June 23, 1962, and replied to by LIC on July 18/19, 1962, reiterating its refusal to pay (paragraphs 9 and 10 ). The other averments in the plaint refer to acknowledgment of liability by the defendants during the correspondence (paragraph 11), the amount claimed (paragraph 12), accrual of cause of action resting on lic's two letters of November 21, 1961 and July 18119, 1962, (paragraph 13), service of notice under section 80 of the Procedure Code (paragraph 14) and valuation of the suit (paragraph 15) Last, come the prayers as usual.;