IMPORTANT POINT
In insurance contracts, the insured must disclose all material facts; failure to do so can lead to repudiation of claims under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner but no one turns up on behalf of the sole respondent, in spite of repeated calls.

2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the award dated 06.05.2017 (Annexure 6) passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Ranchi in PLA case no. 241 of 2013 whereby and where under, claim petition filed by the claimant has been allowed and the repudiation letter at Exhibit A has been set aside with further direction to the Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-to the claimant with Simple Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. 15.05.2013 till payment, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure 6 of this writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased Girdhar Pandey took a policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India bearing policy no. 537424569 wherein the sum assured was Rs. 2,00,000/-. Girdhar Pandey was working as Constable in Jharkhand State police service, during his life time. The policy name was Jeevan Anand with profits, (with accident benefit). The policy was taken from Hazipur branch of LIC of India and the only first and last premium of the policy was made on 17.05.2008. On 04.01.2009, the insured was admitted in Sadar Hospital in Dumka from where, he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi and he was admitted there on 06.01.2009 and he died on 09.01.2009 in course of medical treatment. The claimant being his wife submitted a claim annexing therewith the certificate of the hospital treatment of Girdhar Pandey, the copy of which has been kept at page 3033 of this writ petition, which is the certificate issued by the Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, RIMS Ranchi dated 17.07.2010, in para 5 of which, it has been mentioned by the doctor, in response to the question “What was the exact history reported by the patient at the time of his admission?” -Weakness and inability to walk – 3 to 4 days, dribbling of urine since one year and diabetic for five years, and same was also mentioned in para 7 of the said certificate of the hospital treatment. In the declaration from for obtaining the policy, the said Girdhar Pandey suppressed the materials facts of his ailment, even though he was very much aware that he was suffering from the diabetes since five years and dribbling of urine from one year and he made false statement in the declaration in the proposal form of the policy about his health in the policy in question and on the basis of the same, the LIC of India repudiated the claim of the claimant. The claimant approached the permanent Lok Adalat at Ranchi and the same was contested by the writ petitioner, who were officers of the LIC of India mentioning that in Column No. 11 of the proposal form, for obtaining the said policy of the life assured, the life assured answered in negative with regard to the consultation of the to the medical practitioners, since last five years, in respect of the ailments pertaining to liver, stomach, heart, lungs, kidney, brain or nervous system and about suffering from diabetes, T.B., high B.P, low B.P., cancer, Epilepsy Hernia, Hydrocele or any other disease. The conciliation proceeding before the Permanent Lok Adalat failed and the Permanent Lok Adalat, went on for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The Permanent Lok Adalat on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, formulated the following six points for determination:

(I) Is the instant case as framed maintainable?

(II) Whether the claimant has a valid cause of action for the case?

(III) Whether P.L.A. Ranchi has jurisdiction to decide the instant claim case?

(IV) Whether there was suppression of material facts by the life assured relating to his health as alleged by O.Ps?

(V) Whether Ext. A, i.e; the repudiation of claim vide reference no. PDO/REPD.