- (1.) The present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India, aggrieved against the judgment of the Courts below dated 09.03.1989 & 07.09.1989 whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.62,640/- filed by the plaintiff-respondent on account of repudiation of the insurance policy due to the death of her husband. The appeal filed by the Corporation has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that there was lack of resolution by the Corporation in filing of the appeal. The substantial question of law that arise for consideration before this Court is as under: 1.Whether specific resolution had to be passed for filing of the appeal by the Corporation and whether the delegation of power under Section 49 (2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and Regulation 41 of the Life Insurance Corporation Regulations, 1959 were sufficient for the Zonal Managers to file the appeal 2.Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court that the insured had with-held the material information at the time of filling up of the proposal for insurance was contrary to the evidence on record 3.Whether the pre-suit pendente lite and future interest could be awarded at the rate of 15% in view of the prohibition of the payment of interest under the insurance policy and in view of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(2.) The facts leading to the issues in dispute are that Shiv Kumar Sharma, the husband of the plaintiffrespondent had taken insurance policy with the defendantappellant bearing No.76038269 dated 15.09.1984 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The said policy was taken through the agent of the appellant-Corporation who had promised that all benefits including accidental benefits arising out of or accruing in terms of the said policy would be given and since Late Shiv Kumar Sharma died on 08.05.1986 due to an accident and the defendant-respondent being the widow of the deceased and the nominee had lodged a claim for compensation under the said policy to make payment of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.30,000/- as insurance amount plus Rs.30,000/- as accidental benefit) under Clause 10(b) of the insurance policy. It was alleged that the deceased had died due to an accident in Medical College, Rohtak and the death certificate, the medical certificate for the cause of death and the post-mortem reports were also enclosed. It was alleged that the appellant-Corporation had been requested several times to make the payments of compensation plus bonus amounts. The defendantrespondent was an unemployed housewife who was living three unmarried daughters and two minor sons. The appellant-Corporation, instead of making prompt payment of compensation, repudiated the claim on 31.03.1987. The ground sought in support of the repudiation of the policy was flimsy, false and frivolous and the repudiation was against the mandatory and statutory provisions of the insurance policy since no false information had been supplied by the insured and no material information had been suppressed. It was also alleged that the insured never suffered from any of the diseases as mentioned in Clause 18(e) of the proposal form and the insured never suffered from giddiness and vertigo and he never remained on leave on medical grounds and in fact if a mention was made, it was a ruse and device to avail of leave and the repudiation was without affording any opportunity of hearing and violated the principles of natural justice and the same was not permissible. In fact, it was alleged that giddiness and vertigo do not fall under Clause 18(e) of the proposal form. Accordingly, a claim was made to recover Rs.30,000/- as insurance amount plus Rs.30,000/- asaccidental benefits plus Rs.2,640/- as bonus amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of death of the insured till the date of the payment by the Corporation.
(3.) The suit was resisted by filing written statement that since the claim was an early claim, the same was put to investigation and after receipt of the investigation report, it was found that the deceased had died after falling from the roof and he had been an old patient of giddiness and vertigo prior to his taking the policy. The deceased was alleged to have taken leave from 02.05.1983 to 28.05.1983 from his office on medical grounds. The deceased had also willfully suppressed material fact from his proposal form and personal statements and declaration regarding his health, and therefore, the repudiation was valid in law. Clause 18(e) and 21 were reproduced to contend that giddiness and vertigo come under the ambit of the diseases mentioned in Clause 18(e) and the policy was void, and therefore, the repudiation was legal. The Corporation alleged that the insured had suffered from giddiness and vertigo which are diseases of brain and the nervous system and had the proposer disclosed the diseases of giddiness and vertigo and of availing leave on medical grounds, the insurance policy would not have been under written and accordingly it was held that the Corporation was not bound to make any payment under the policy as stated in the earlier paragraphs.;