SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Insurance and Banking Law

Smt. Dipashri v. Life Insurance Corporation of India AIR 1985 Bom. 192

Smt. Dipashri v. Life Insurance Corporation of India AIR 1985 Bom. 192

FACTS-

  • A young widow(petitioner) with three minor children sought to claim benefits from a life insurance policy after her husband's accidental death.
  • The deceased husband had taken out a policy with the Life Insurance Corporation of India while employed
  • Petitioner’s husband while lighting the Stove in the Kitchen, accidentally sustained severe burns and afterward succumbed due to injuries caused.
  • The Corporation (respondents) claimed that prior to the proposal date, petitioner’s husband suffered from bleeding from fissure cuts, inflamed piles, and rectum issues, leading to low blood pressure, giddiness, and weakness, for which he had also taken medical leave.
  • It was claimed by the Corporation that as the deceased did not disclose these facts in the personal Statement form, the claim stands forfeited.
  • The petitioner pointed out that her husband died at a very young age of 43 years and the Corporation should not jump to the conclusion that the deceased was suffering from piles, giddiness, and Influenza merely from the fact that the deceased had taken sick leave from his office.
  • The petitioner filed a present petition before HC under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

ISSUE-

  • Whether the Life Insurance Corporation of India was justified in repudiating the insurance claim based on alleged inaccurate health statements made by the deceased policyholder.

RULE-

  • The court clarified that for Section 45 to apply, the suppression of facts must be fraudulent, deliberate, and intentional.

HELD-

  • The court criticized the Corporation for raising technical defenses and obstructing the widow's claim.
  • It noted that the deceased's health history, including minor ailments like fever and flu, did not warrant the conclusion that he deliberately misled the Corporation. Also, it was accepted by the deceased that he had not consulted the Medical Practitioner within the last five years prior to the date of making the proposal.
  • The court considered the medical evidence, including a confidential report from a medical examiner, Dr. Sahil Dipchand, which indicated that the deceased was in good health. This evidence contradicted the Corporation's claim that the deceased was suffering from serious ailments
  • The court ruled in favour of the petitioner, the widow, and directed the Corporation to pay the amount due under the policy, along with accrued benefits and interest.
  • Additionally, the court awarded compensatory costs to the petitioner for the Corporation's unjustified defence.

 

COMMENTARIES RATIO/NOTE-

What is material is a question of fact. However, ordinary passing ailments are not material matters. But suppression of fact of two months’ abortion 15 days prior to the date of proposal amounts to suppression of a material fact [Sheoshankar v Life Insurance Corp of India, AIR 1971 Bom 304].