In insurance contracts, the duty of disclosure extends only to material facts that would influence a prudent insurer's risk assessment; failure to disclose common, self-healing, or incidental medical conditions does not constitute material suppression sufficient to void a policy.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5497 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this judgment by their status in the writ petition.

2. The husband of the 1^st respondent was an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (‘LIC’ for short). He took a cancer cover policy of LIC and was issued with Ext.P1 policy document with the commencement date 14.11.2017. Ext.P2 is the proposal of the said date submitted by the husband of the 1^st respondent for availing the policy. The husband of the 1^st respondent was diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma on 16.08.2019, and was succumbed to that illness on 16.09.2019. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent, being the widow and nominee of the insured, submitted a claim under the policy before the 1^st petitioner. By Ext.P3 letter dated 27.12.2019, the claim of the 1^st respondent was repudiated by the 1^st petitioner on the ground of suppression of material facts regarding the treatment and health condition of the insured in the proposal form. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the 1^st respondent preferred an appeal to the 2^nd petitioner. But by Ext.P4 letter dated 16.03.2020, the 2^nd petitioner upheld the decision of the 1^st petitioner.

2.1. Aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P4, the 1^st respondent preferred Ext.P5 O.P.No.10147 of 2020 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, invoking the provisions under Section 22(a)(b)(vi) of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The petitioners entered appearance before the Permanent Lok Adalat and filed a written statement contending that there was suppression or non- disclosure of relevant material facts relating to the health condition of the policyholder, which, if disclosed, the LIC would not have issued the policy in the normal course of business. 2.2. By Ext.P10 award dated 24.09.2024, the Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the petition filed by the 1^st respondent and directed the LIC to pay the entire amount of Rs.35/- Lakhs under the policy within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the award, failing which the award amount will carry interest @ 9% from the date of award till realisation and further directed the LIC to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month for a period of ten years from the date of the award. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.5497 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 award of the Permanent Lok Adalat and to declare that the 1^st respondent was not entitled to any relief under the policy as directed in Ext.P10 award.

2.3. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 19.08.2025 dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 10 to 14 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

“10. The main ground urged by the petitioners is that the insured did not reveal the fact that he was suffering from Aphthoid Ulcer, fatty liver and prostatomegaly in the proposal form. The Permanent Lok Adalat noted that Aphthoid Ulcer is a common ulcerative inflammatory condition inside the mouth or at the base of the gums which would heal without any treatment. The husband of the 1^st respondent was a teetotaler, and fatty liver is considered as not harmful. The Permanent Lok Adalat further concluded that the prostatomegaly is a common occurrence in men of a certain age and was considere