LIC of India v. Vijay Sharma

IN T

Life Insurance C

Smt. Vijay Shar

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

for

MANDEEP PA

1.

Insurance Corpo and others (res Courts below re Brief Facts

Dr. under two life i

05.10.1982, and the policies laps for ₹10,000 wa revived on 22 corporation. THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

Re

Pro Corporation of India VERSUS

rma & Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and r. Kunal Soni, Advocate for the a r. Akshit Pathania, Amicus Curia the respondent. ANNU, J e present Regular Second Ap oration of India (appellant/defe spondents/plaintiffs), challengin ecorded in judgments and decrees Abnash Chand Sharma, PCM nsurance policies. Policy No. 22 d Policy No. 229390414 for ₹50, sed for sometime on account of as revived by him on 03.05.198 .05.1985, after payment of a

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-2326-1994 (O&M) served on: 20.08.2025 onounced on:25.08.2025

.....Appellant

.....Respondents DEEP PANNU d appellant. e, ppeal has been filed by the L endant) against Smt. Vijay Shar ng the concurrent findings of s dated 25.11.1992 and 19.04.19 MS, was insured by the defend 2755994 for ₹10,000 was taken 000 was taken on 26.04.1980. B f non-payment of premiums. Pol 85 and the policy for ₹50,000 w arrears of dues to the defend

Life rma

¶994dant n on Both licy was

3.

Dr. plaintiffs as his Nos. 2 and 3, Ab of the amounts Feeling aggrieve

4.

suit. It was plea defendant-Corpo regarding his he the policies wa interest on the a plaintiffs were n if any wrong sta the insured, the under the policy

5.

It ₹75,000, wherea being the sum a It was also alleg had rightly sued

6.

Fro

1.

¶2Abnash Chand Sharma died o legal heirs. Plaintiff No.1 Vijay bishek and Ankush, are his sons s under the two policies, but t ed, they filed a suit for recovery e defendant-Corporation, upon n aded that the contract between D oration was void on account of ealth on 03.05.1985 and 22.05. s void ab initio. It was further amount due was not admitted. not entitled to any amount becau atement or incorrect information e defendant-Corporation would y. was further pleaded that the as the actual contractual liability assured under the two policies of ged that the defendant-Corporati d the corporation and that the suit om the pleadings of the parties, th Whether the plaintiffs are mi filed by the next friend? OPP. Whether the plaintiff is entitle defendant? OPP.

on 13.06.1985, leaving behind Sharma is his widow, and plaint . The plaintiffs applied for paym the defendant-Corporation refus of ₹75,000. notice, appeared and contested Dr. Abnash Chand Sharma and f incorrect statements made by h 1985. Consequently, the revival r contended that the right to cla It was specifically alleged that use of a condition in the policy t on any material point was made not be liable to pay any amo e plaintiffs had wrongly claim y, if any, could only be for ₹60,0 f ₹10,000 and ₹50,000 respectiv ion did not admit that the plaint t was liable to dismissal. he following issues were framed inors and the suit has been righ ed to recovery of ₹75,000 from

tiffs ment sed. him l of aim e by ount med 000, ely. tiffs d:

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

¶9Findings of the

7.

evidence, held t from which Dr. the claim of the DW10, Sh. D.K investigated the Whether the plaint does not di Whether the defendant has not Whether the Civil Courts at G this suit? OPD. Whether the plaintiff is entitle from the defendant? OPP. Whether the contract is ren insurer, Dr. Abnash Chand Sha regarding his health on 03.05. Whether the revival of the po so, what is its effect? OPD. Whether there is no contrac defendant regarding the suit am

¶0Whether there is a condition statement of fact or material in is no liability of the defendant . Relief. e Trial Court e learned trial Court, after heari that misstatement of facts, inco Abnash Chand Sharma was suff e plaintiffs. This finding was bas K. Sharma, Divisional Manager case. He admitted that the insu

isclose any cause of action? OPD t been properly sued? OPD. Gurdaspur has no jurisdiction to ed to any interest on the suit amo ndered void ab initio because arma, had made incorrect statem 1985 and 22 May 1985? OPD. olicy was declared null and void ctual liability on the part of mount? OPD. in the policy that in case any m nformation is made that event th t? OPD. ing the parties and considering orrect statements, and the ailme fering were not sufficient to disc sed particularly on the admission of LIC of India, who had him ured was medically examined at

D. try ount ment ? If mis-here ents card n of

time when his li insurance declar

8.

for insurance by ₹10,000 and ₹5 claim of the plai

9.

It w spite of the fact was approved m admitted by DW detail, the trial were passed on Findings of the

10.

learned first app once the revival Section 45 of th the Hon'ble Su 1979 Andhra P original policy c in which event Section are sat finding on point of the original p ife was insured, and the medica red him fit and approved the case e Court observed that if Dr. Abn y the medical officer at the tim 50,000 (Exhibits D1 and D3), i intiffs could later be repudiated i was further held that the insured t that he was suffering from jau medically because jaundice is on W9 Dr. S. Verma. After discussin Court decreed the suit of the p

25.11.1992 by the learned Sub J e First Appellate Court e defendant-Corporation filed an pellate Court held that under Sec l takes place, the original policy he Act, is clearly attracted. Relia upreme Court in L.I.C of India Pradesh 39, where it was held th comes into operation and Sectio the burden is on the Corporatio tisfied before successfully repu t No.1 is that the two years' perio policy and not from the date of th

al officer who examined him bef e. nash Chand Sharma was declared me of insurance of the policies it was not understandable how in view of the admission of DW1 d was declared fit for insurance undice and pneumothorax. His c nly a symptom and not a disease ng the evidence of all witnesses plaintiffs. The judgment and dec Judge First Class, Gurdaspur. n appeal, which was dismissed. T ction 45 of the Insurance Act, 19 comes into operation and the bar ance was placed on the judgmen a, Bombay v. Vesai Bharathi, A hat once the revival takes place, on 45 of the Act is clearly attrac on to show that the requirement udiating the contract. Hence od must be computed from the d he revival of the policy."

fore d fit for

¶10e in case , as s in cree 938, r of t of AIR cted t of

11.

under Section 4 and not from t policies remain Sharma, the L Accordingly, th

19.04.1994.

12.

Fee Courts below, th Life Insurance C

13.

appearing on be Curiae was ap Submissions of

14.

It i below erred in d further submitte were obtained o a clear declarati were true to the in case the said of insurance w declared that his disease, and th preceding five y e appellate Court held that the 5 of the Act, must be computed the date of revival. Consequen ned in force and on account of LIC was bound to pay the s he appeal was dismissed vi eling aggrieved by the concurr he present Regular Second Appe Corporation of India. tice of the appeal was issued to ehalf of the respondents. Vide o ppointed to address arguments f Counsel for the Parties s argued by learned counsel for decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs ed that the initial life insurance on the basis of proposal forms Ex on of the life assured that the sta e best of his knowledge and beli declaration was found to contain would be null and void. On th s usual state of health was good hat he had not consulted any years for any ailment. On that ba

e two years' period contempla from the date of the original pol ntly, the Court concluded that f the death of Dr. Abnash Cha sum assured under the polic ide judgment and decree da rent judgments and decrees of eal has been filed by the defenda o the respondents. No one had b order dated 15.07.2025, an Ami s on behalf of the responden r the appellant that both the Cou fs. Learned counsel for the appell e policies for ₹10,000 and ₹50,0 x. D1 and Ex. D6, which contain atements and answers given by h ef. It was specifically declared t n any untrue statement, the contr he basis of the said assurance, d, that he had not suffered from a y medical practitioner within sis, the policies were issued.

ated licy ies. ated ant– een icus nts. urts lant ned him ract he

15.

It w of the original p the revival of th of the half-yearl the lapsed polic D7, dated 03.05 a declaration of if the declaration

16.

Lea in the personal from any illnes "No." Another lungs, to which statements were Within one mon

17.

Lea admitted to Ra

01.06.1985 and The case history hepatitis and pn had been suffer doctor himself, made false decla

18.

It w evidence. DW9 was further argued that there is n policies issued in 1980, but the hose policies. Since the policies ly premium due in October 1984 cies on the basis of personal sta

5.1985 and 22.05.1985. In those f good health. It was specifically n was untrue, the contract would arned counsel drew the attention statements. One question was s requiring treatment for more question was whether he was h he again answered "No." Ac e false, and the assured had deli nth of revival of the policies, he d arned counsel pointed out that am Saran Dass Kishori Lal referred to PGI Chandigarh, wh y at PGI revealed that the assured neumothorax, that he had been ring from jaundice with low-gra the assured was well aware of arations while seeking revival of was argued that the findings of 9 Dr. S. Verma, PGI, proved

no dispute regarding the correctn dispute arises only with respec lapsed on account of non-paym 4, the assured applied for reviva atements of health, Ex. D2 and statements, the insured again m y provided in the revival forms t d be void. n of the Court to the questions ask whether the assured had suffe than a week, to which he repl suffering from any disease of ccording to learned counsel, th iberately suppressed material fa died on 13.06.1985. t Dr. Abnash Chand Sharma w Charitable Hospital, Amritsar ere he was admitted on 13.06.19 d was suffering from chronic act taking injections for 10 years, a ade fever since 14 months. Bein f his medical condition, and yet f the policies. f the Courts below are contrary d the case history which clea

ness t to ment l of Ex. made ked ered lied hese acts. was on

¶985tive ng a t he y to

mentioned that pneumothorax a prior to his deat ignored by the C by the doctors policies. Learn Insurance Corpo given by the life corporation wo specialists. By c that opportunity

19.

In s upon a judgmen LIC of India a concealment of replacement sur claim. Accordin case.

20.

It w Insurance Corp Section 45 of th permits repudiat revival of the p suppression of irrespective of th t the patient was suffering fr and had a history of jaundice a th. He was also addicted to injec Courts below merely on the gro of Life Insurance Corporation ned counsel submitted that th oration doctors at the time of in e assured in the proposal form. H ould have examined him more concealing these ailments, the a y. support of his contentions, learn nt of this Court passed in the cas and Others, 2019 (3) RCR (Ci f material facts relating to rgery and bypass surgery justi ng to learned counsel, this judg was also argued that the Courts oration could only repudiate th he Insurance Act, 1938. Learned tion even after two years if mat policy was based on personal s material facts therein entitled he time elapsed from the date of

rom chronic active hepatitis a and low-grade fever for 14 mon ctions. His evidence, however, w ound that the insured was examin n before issuance of the origi he medical examination by L nsurance was based on the answ Had he disclosed the true facts, e thoroughly and referred him assured deprived the corporation ned counsel for the appellant rel se of Harpreet Kaur and Other ivil) 801, wherein it was held t serious ailments such as va ified repudiation of the insura gment fully applies to the pres s below erred in holding that L he policy within two years un d counsel submitted that Section terial misstatement is proved. Si statements of health in May 19 d LIC to repudiate the contr f original policies.

nths was ned inal Life wers m to n of lied rs v. alve nce sent Life nder n 45 nce 985, act,

21.

On supported the ju in the concurren a continuation o squarely applies suppression of f no such proof h insured was ex mention of jaun concealment of the Courts below Findings of this

22.

Thi examined the re were issued in 1 they were revive respectively. It month of reviva

23.

Dr. S. Verma, w fever for 14 mo not mentioned b rejected. Relianc testimony of DW n the other hand, learned am udgments of the Courts below. H nt findings. He submitted that the of the original policies issued in s, and the burden was upon th facts was fraudulent and materi has been furnished by the corpo xamined by LIC doctors, decla ndice or low-grade fever in the f a material disease. He therefor w do not call for interference. s Court is Court has carefully consid ecord. It is not in dispute that the 1980, that they lapsed on accoun ed by documents Ex. D2 and Ex is also admitted that the insure al. e appellant has placed reliance o which records chronic active hep onths prior to death. However, m by the insured, the claim of the ce in this regard has rightly been W10, Shri D.K. Sharma, Divisio

micus curiae for the responde He argued that there is no illega e revival of the policies was mer 1980. Hence, Section 45 of the A he corporation to establish that ial. Learned counsel submitted t oration. He further argued that ared medically fit, and that m e case history could not amount re contended that the judgments dered the rival submissions a e initial policies Ex. D1 and Ex. nt of non-payment of dues, and t x. D7 on 03.05.1985 and 22.05.19 ed died on 13.06.1985, within o on the case history proved by DW patitis, pneumothorax, jaundice, a merely because these ailments w e plaintiffs cannot be straightaw n placed by the Courts below on onal Manager of LIC, who admit

ents ality rely Act mere t to s of D3 one W9 were way

that the insured policies and was

24.

It i cross-examinati Thus, the so-cal purposes of avo

25.

Sec that no policy o date on which i shows that the case, the policie Court has rightl of LIC of India policy, and on Consequently, t original policie suppression.

26.

Kaur v. Life In there was conce which were clea concealment of suffering from j to disentitle the him fit and the p was examined by the medical o s declared medically fit. is also relevant that DW9 Dr. on that jaundice is only a sym lled concealment cannot be treat iding the policy. ction 45 of the Insurance Act, 19 f life insurance shall be called in it was effected, on the ground o misstatement was material and es were effected in 1980 and rev ly applied the judgment of the H a, Bombay (supra), holding that nce revival takes place, the o the two years' period must be s, and the burden was on the e reliance placed by learned cou nsurance Corporation of India ealment of serious surgeries such arly material facts. In the prese f a grave or life-threatening d aundice or low-grade fever, whi claim, particularly when the m policies were approved.

officer at the time of issuance of S.Verma, PGI himself admitted mptom and not a disease in its ted as fraudulent or material for 938, as applicable, clearly provi n question after two years from of misstatement, unless the insu d made fraudulently. In the pres vived in 1985. The lower appell Hon'ble Supreme Court in the c revival relates back to the origi original policy comes into for e computed from the date of e corporation to establish mate unsel for the appellant on Harpr (supra) is misplaced. In that ca h as valve replacement and bypa ent case, however, there is no su disease. At best, the insured w ich by themselves are not suffici medical officer of LIC had decla

d in self. ides urer sent late case inal rce. erial reet ase, ass, uch was ient

27.

Thi the Courts below correct applicati Conclusion

28.

In were rightly hel the Life Insuran There is no ille interference in s

29.

Pen

August 25, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

is Court, therefore, finds no ille w. The findings are based on pr ion of Section 45 of the Insuranc view of the above discussion, d entitled to the sum assured und nce Corporation of India has no m egality in the concurrent finding second appeal. nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

gality in the concurrent findings roper appreciation of evidence ce Act. this Court holds that the plaint der the policies. The appeal filed merit and is accordingly dismiss gs of the Courts below warrant stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

s of tiffs d by sed.