Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) The instant first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.7.1987 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff- appellant for recovery of Rs. 36,000.
(2.) Briefly put, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit with the averments in the plaint that the defendant was the Corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956. The plaintiff's husband late Belaram submitted a proposal for insurance of his life for a sum of Rs. 25,000 on 29.1.1976 to Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ajmer Division, Ajmer ('L.I.C.' for short). According to the plaintiff, the proposal was accepted and consequently first yearly instalment of extra premium amounting to Rs. 2,245 paid by the proposer was adjusted and policy No.25833199 under the Table and Term 24-15 was issued to Belaram commencing the risk from 25.2.1977. The second yearly instalment due on 25.2.1978 was also paid and the policy remained in force. The assured Belaram died on 11.7.1978 and the plaintiff being the nominee in the aforesaid policy became entitled to claim the policy amount which claim was made by her. However, under a letter received by the plaintiff on 26.9.1979, defendant informed plaintiff that they had decided to repudiate all liabilities under the aforesaid policy as the deceased withheld material information regarding his health. The plaintiff made a representation on 8.11.1979 for sympathetic consideration and issued reminders and also served a notice dated 19.3.1981 through her counsel but without any effect. The plaintiff averred that the allegation of withholding material information by the deceased was thoroughly incorrect and repudiation claimed by the defendant was against the contract and the governing law. Besides the sum assured of Rs. 25,000, the plaintiff claimed bonus of Rs. 2,000 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of death of her husband and hence filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 36,000 and other ancillary reliefs.
(3.) The defendant L.I.C. in its written statement averred, inter alia, that the proposal was submitted with the desire of perpetuating fraud in the matter of obtaining policy. The averment regarding extra premium and commencement of policy were not disputed with the contention that at that time the defendant was not aware of the fraud. The defendant maintained that the claim was rightly repudiated for the reasons stated in the repudiation letter. In the additional pleas, the defendant made the following averments in para 15: "(15) That while submitting the proposal form and answering the questions in personal statement the deceased wilfully and fraudulently suppressed that he had suffered from tuberculosis, diabetes, hypertension and other diseases. If in answer to the relevant questions he had disclosed the information about his aforesaid ailments the defendants' Divisional Office would have been put on its guard and the underwriter would not have recommended the acceptance of proposal by Divisional Office. In such circumstances the deceased would have been put to proper check-up in every respect and the proposal with all the check-up reports would have been submitted to the Central Office and it would have been a matter for Central Office either to reject the proposal or to accept it on such terms as the Central Office thought fit. The fact that the deceased died of heart failure is also enough testimony of the fact that he suffered from diabetes, hypertension, tuberculosis, etc. Thus looking to the averments in the proposal form, personal statement and the policy conditions the contract of insurance stood vitiated. And the plaintiff is not entitled to base his claim on such an unenforceable and void contract." The defendant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.;