1. Being aggrieved by the considered judgment and decree of dismissal passed in O.S.255/1997 which was pending on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Shimoga, present appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC.

2. Appellant was the plaintiff and respondent was the defendant in the said suit.

3. Parties will be referred to plaintiff and defendant as per their status in the Trial Court.

4. Smt. Basanthi Kumari D Jain, who was the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff had taken an insurance policy bearing No.620802989 in her name. The sum assured was Rs.3 Lakhs and the yearly premium was Rs.11,413/-. Plaintiff had been named as a nominee in her insurance policy. A proposal for the policy was made on 9.7.1994 by the plaintiff by indicating the date of the commencement of the risk from 28.5.1994. Smt. Lakshmi. D Padiyar was the L.I.C agent, who canvassed for the policy. Along with the proposal, a sum of Rs.11,413/- was given to the defendant and a premium receipt was issued to that effect on 28.7.1994. A valid insurance policy was issued by the Senior Manager of L.I.C., Branch Office, Shimoga on 19.8.1994 incorporating the special condition vide clause No.4B.

5. The proponent-insured, who was the mother of three children died on 18.1.1996 in Nanjappa Hospital, Shimoga. After her death, the plaintiff being the nominee under the above policy made a claim for the amount assured in the policy. Inspite of lapse of 1½ years, the defendant did not settle the claim and hence he got issued a notice on 19.6.1997 to the Divisional Commissioner, LIC, Udupi calling upon to settle the amount assured lest he would be forced to initiate proceedings in the Court of law. The Divisional Manager replied in writing on 27.6.1997 requesting him to wait for some time, since they were waiting for some information from outside the office.

6. Later on, the defendant intimated the plaintiff that the entire amount of Rs.3 Lakhs assured vide policy No.620802989 could not be given as the insured died within three years from the date of the commencement of the risk, by committing suicide. This, according to the LIC, was in accordance with the prohibitive clause 4B inserted in the policy. Hence, a sum of Rs.22,226/- paid as premium on two occasions was returned to the plaintiff. The intimation to this effect was given in writing by the Divisional Office, Udupi vide letter dated 27.8.1997.

7. According to the plaintiff, the repudiation of the claim for entire assured amount of Rs.3 Lakhs by the defendant was not justified either in law or on facts, moreso, when the policy had been obtained by the insured for the future benefit of her children and for her future. The rejection of the claim of the plaintiff was in breach of contractual liability, was the pleading. Hence, a suit was filed by the plaintiff-nominee on 20.10.1997 claiming in all a sum of Rs.3,38,157/- which was inclusive of the sum assured, interest thereon, accrued bonus minus Rs.22,226/- being received by the plaintiff in respect of two premiums paid to LIC.

8. Defendant chose to file written statement through Sri.B.S.Adiga, Manager (Legal & HPF) LIC, Udupi Division on 7.3.1998 denying the material allegations with an averment that the repudiation of the claim was unjust and contrary to the agreement. It was specifically pleaded before the Trial Court that rejection of the claim was perfectly justified as the insured died by committing suicide within three years from the date of the commencement of the risk and this was in terms of clause No. 4B attached to the policy of Insurance.

9. According to the defendant, the policy had been issued imposing clause B as the insured had no sufficient income of her. It was further pleaded that in the fourth page of the policy, there was a note to the effect that the policy holder was requested to examine the policy and if not aggreable, to return it immediately for correction. If the insured had any objection to the imposition of Clause-B in the