Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - (1.) This petition is filed challenging an order dated 9 March, 2016 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation. The short point involved in this petition is whether the respondent authorities were justified in suspending the second insurance policy of the petitioner being a Jeevan Saral Policy bearing No.429209715 dated 28 December, 2011 on the ground of material suppression and non-disclosure of material facts.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a policy being policy No.426922836 on 12 August, 2008 for an assured sum of Rs.50 lakhs. The petitioner continued with the said policy and was regularly making payment of the premium for approximately 5 years. Ultimately, the petitioner surrendered this policy on 25 February, 2013. Before surrendering the first policy the petitioner purchased another policy for an assured sum of Rs.2 crores on 20 December, 2011. This policy was to mature in December 2027. On 4 August, 2014 the respondent authorities issued a letter to the petitioner, inter alia, informing the petitioner that the second policy being policy No.429209715 was temporarily suspended on the grounds that (i) a clarification was sought for not disclosing the extra premium which the petitioner had been directed to pay in respect of the first policy being policy No.426922836; and (ii) a request was made by the respondent authorities for the petitioner to carry out a liver profile test at a particular medical centre and that was not complied with (iii) a request made by the respondent authorities to provide details of the elevated liver profile of the petitioner which was also not complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said letter on 17 November, 2014 requesting the respondent authorities to recall and withdraw the letter dated 4 August, 2014. On 24 November, 2014 the respondent authorities further taking notice of the petitioner's letter reminded the petitioner that he had failed to comply with the requirements contained in the earlier letter dated 4 August, 2014. The petitioner replied to the letter dated 24 November, 2014 but failed to carry out the medical test as requested by the respondent authorities. Moreover, the petitioner alleged that he was not responsible for what had been filed in the form and blamed the agent for filling up the wrong details. Further correspondence ensued between the parties and ultimately the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP 1252 (W) of 2016, inter alia, complaining of non-consideration of his representations dated 17 November, 2014 and 25 August, 2014 respectively made to the respondent authorities. By an order dated 8 February, 2016 a Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court directed that the representations filed by the petitioner be considered and the same be disposed of in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order dated 8 December, 2016, the Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent authorities considered the same of the petitioner and rejected the representation of the petitioner primarily on the grounds that the petitioner had failed to (a) undergo a liver function test as directed and; (b) that there was non-disclosure of material facts by the petitioner in obtaining the second policy and (c) further that the petitioner had not complied with the conditions contained in the letter of the respondent authorities dated 4 August, 2014 within the specified time period or at all. By the impugned order, it was further held that, the petitioner had concealed material facts before the respondent authorities and the policy of the petitioner had been justifiably suspended.
(3.) Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously contended that there was no suppression of any kind whatsoever by the petitioner. He submitted that the respondent authorities in suspending the second policy had acted perversely and without application of mind. He further submitted that from the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent authorities it would be evident that the petitioner in his application form pertaining to the second policy had categorically stated that he had obtained the previous policy bearing No.426922836 and accordingly there was no question of any kind of suppression.;