LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION Vs. YOGESH CHANDRA LODH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have preferred this appeal which arises out of a suit filed by respondent No. 1 claiming the benefit on the life insurance policy, being policy No. 10210751, perhaps dated January 7, 1958, on the demise of his spouse, Smt. Manorma Lodh Roy.

(2.) A policy had been obtained by the said deceased lady from the Metropolitan Insurance Co., being policy No. 477407, which policy, it is not disputed, was transferred to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"). Because of the plaintiffs wife being highly of overweight, that policy was accepted by the said Metropolitan Insurance Co., with lien of the 50% of the sum assured decreasing by 10% per year. Subsequently, the plaintiff and his wife, the said late Smt. Manorma Lodh Roy, took a joint policy from the Corporation (which is the subject -matter of this appeal) for a sum of Rs. 2,000 but in the instant suit, the claim was made to the extent of Rs. 1,642 only, since, as it appears, a sum of Rs. 350 was advanced as a loan on the said policy. On the death of the wife, the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 claimed the said amount but it was refused by the Corporation on the ground of giving mis -statement in answer to questions Nos. 8 and 9 in the proposal form and also for fraudulent suppression of material facts, rendering the policy null and void. By this, the nature of the previous policy, that is, policy No. 477407, and the state of health of the wife of the plantiff at the time of the purchase of that policy had been concealed.

(3.) THE trial court dismissed the suit but the appellate court decreed it mainly on the grounds : (i) that the plaintiffs wife, being an uneducated lady, the form was filled in by the agent and she could not know its implication, (ii)that the mention of the loss of weight was not material because at the time the proposal was signed, the plaintiffs wife was perfectly in sound health and the loss of weight was not due to any deceit and, therefore, the omission to mention it was not material, and (iii) that the mis -statement by the proponent in exhibit A was not material nor was it made fraudulently with the knowledge of the proponent to be false and, therefore, it did not vitiate the contract. Hence, this appeal by the defendants.