1. Whether any mis-statement in the proposal form for obtaining life insurance policy automatically exonerates the Life Insurance Corporation of India (the first defendant) from liability to honour the policy claim is the question of law that falls for consideration in this appeal.

2. The first plaintiff is the wife of late Krapa Madhava Rao, insured in this case. He died intestate on 20.09.1982. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are his sons. The second defendant was the mother of Madhava Rao. She died during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, defendants 3 to 5 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased-second defendant. The third defendant died during the pendency of the appeal.

3. When Madhava Rao died, the first plaintiff, who is the nominee of the policy, claimed the sum insured at Rs.50,000/-. The first defendant declined to pay on the ground that Madhava Rao suppressed material information and that the policy consequently has become void. As the first defendant refused to honour the policy, the plaintiffs preferred the claim for the policy amount of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiffs indeed claimed that Rs.37,500/- be paid to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 put together and the balance of Rs.12,500/-out of the amount be paid to the second defendant (as the second defendant being the mother of deceased-Madhava Rao was one of the four class-I heirs of deceased-Madhava Rao). The trial Court concluded that there was material suppression by Madhava Rao and that the policy, therefore, was not enforceable. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred the appeal, inter alia contending that there was no material suppression and that policy amount being paltry amount deserves to be paid to the plaintiffs together with interest.

4. The narrow question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the money decree as prayed for.

5. Most of the facts are admitted. The dispute is regarding method of computation of the facts. The deceased-Krapa Madhava Rao was unwell from 04.12.1975 till 07.01.1976. He underwent treatment during that period at CBM Bethel Hospital, Vuyyuru. The deceased was suffering from chronic headache, hypertension and palpitation. He was also an edict of alcohol. The deceased underwent treatment, perhaps, for the above ailments from 04.12.1975 till 07.01.1976 i.e., for a period of 33 days. Ex.B.6 is the certificate issued by the Superintendent of CBM Bethel Hospital, Vuyyuru in that regard.

6. In Ex.B.2 proposal form, Column No.22 deals with some of the ailments. I may quote Column No.22 of Ex.B.2 as it has relevance to the rival claims. Column No.22 of Ex.B.2 proposal form reads:

“22. (a) Did you ever have any operation, accident or injury?

(b) Have you ever had an electrocardiogram, X-ray or screening, blood, urine or stools examination?

(c) Have you ever been in any hospital, asylum, or sanatorium for check-up, observation, treatment or any operation? ”

7. Column No.22 (a) relates to operation, accident or injury. Madhava Rao answered the same in the negative. However, it is not the case of anybody that Madhava Rao underwent operation or suffered from an accident or an injury. Column No.22 (b) reads whether Madhava Rao ever underwent ECG, X-ray, screening and examination of blood, urine or stools. The answer to the question was again in the negative. Column No.22 (c) was question relating to the hospitalisation and treatment in any asylum or sanatorium either for check up, observation, treatment or any operation. The answer to this query indeed was again in the negative.

8. The first plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined a private medical practitioner at Vuyyuru as PW.2. The defendants 3 to 5 did not choose to examine any witness in support of their case, whereas, the first defendant examined as many as three witnesses. DW.1 is the Administrative Officer of the first defendant. He produced Ex.B.2-proposal form, Ex.B.3- medical examination report, and Ex.B.4-policy. Th