( 1 ) THIS is defendant's appeal against the judgement and Decree dated 31-8-1977 made by the I Additional Civil Judge, mangalore. The Life Insurance Corporation of India - the Appellant, and smt. B. Kusuma t. Rai the respondent herein were the defendant and the plaintiff respectively in the trial Court. The appellant and the respondent in this appeal, for the sake of convenience, would be referred to in the course of this Judgement as the defendant and the plaintiff respectively.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 6 of 1975, seeking a decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as due under the policy bearing No. S. 39675124, a sum of Rs. 5,385/- towards interest on Rs. 30,000/- from 6-1-1972 to 3-1-1975 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, and a sum of rs. 15/- towards the cost of registered notice.

( 3 ) THE facts on which the plaintiff founded her reliefs are these : b. S. Thimmappa Rai (Hereinafter referred to as the assured), the husband of the plaintiff, had insured his life for a sum of rs. 30,000/- under policy No. S. 39675124. The assured had nominated the plaintiff as a nominee. The assured died on 6-1-1972 at Father muller's Hospital at Kankanady, Mangalore. The assured, prior to his death, had assigned his policy in favour of the Vijaya Bank limited as security for the amounts borrowed by him. The Vijaya Bank, after the death of the assured, on the strength of the assignment, furnished proof of death and lodged claim with original policy on 8-4-1972 the defendant repudiated the claim on 30-7-1973 on the ground that the policy holder had made deliberate mis-statements and had withheld material information regarding his health at the time of effecting the assurance. The plaintiff paid the amounts due to the vijaya Bank and got the policy re-assigned in her favour. Hence, she was entitled to claim the amounts due under the policy. She made a request to the defendant on 8-10-1973 to pay the amounts due to her under the policy. The defendant neither paid the amounts nor replied. On 10-6-1974, the plaintiff sent a registered notice through her lawyer to the defendant demanding the amounts due under the policy. The defendant sent a reply dated 11-7-1974 repudiating the claim once again on the same grounds on which it had repudiated the claim on 30-7-1973 when the same had been lodged by the vijaya Bank. The plaintiff alleged that the contentions raised by the defendant for repudiating the claim were neither true nor valid in law. She denied the material allegations made by the defendant in the reply dated 11-7-1974. She averred that the terms, if any, in the policy of contract entitling the defendant to repudiate the claim were unenforceable, invalid and opposed to law and public policy. She stated that the assured, at the time of proposal of the policy, has been examined by a Doctor approved by the defendant and that the defendant after getting a certificate from the Medical Officer and after being satisfied about the state of health of the assured, issued the policy, adding that the repudiation of the claim was unjust and opposed to law.

( 4 ) THE defendant filed written statement, taking very many defences. Among other things, it contended that the proposal and the personal statement made by the assured for taking the Insurance Policy constitute basis for the contract of insurance; that they are the material parts of the contract; that the assured had made false and incorrect statements in the personal statement submitted by him knowing fully well that the statement he was making was false and incorrect; that the assured was under an obligation to disclose all material facts regarding his health so that it could determine whether or not to accept the risk; that the assured had suppressed material facts while making the personal statement; that he had suggested false facts; and that the answers given by the assured to Items Nos. 4,6,8,9 and 10 of the personal statement dated 28-9-