A contract of insurance is a contract uberrima fides, which means that the insured is expected to disclose all material facts to the insurer. If the insured makes a false statement or suppresses a material fact, the insurer can avoid the contract.

RAMAPRASADA RAO J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 6/69, on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, is the appellant. A policy of insurance, exhibit A-4, was accepted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called "the Corporation") under the following circumstances : The plaintiff and his wife, late Ranganayagi, took out a joint life endowment assurance policy for Rs. 25, 000 and paid the premium for the first quarter and obtained a receipt on December 31, 1959. Ranganayagi, however, died a few days later, to wit, on January 17, 1960. On information about the death, the Corporation made certain investigations and found that the policy had to be repudiated since certain material facts which the insured have to furnish were not given and certain other representations which were peculiarly within the personal knowledge of the insured were incorrectly stated. The Corporation would also take up the position that Ranganayagi who was suffering from tuberculosis suppressed the fact and that she deliberately gave the information that she last delivered a child on May 18, 1959, when on investigation it was found as seen from exhibits A-3 and A-14 that the date of birth was August 31, 1959. As under the accredited policy governing the Corporation no policy of a woman would be accepted if she gave birth to a child within six months prior to the date of proposal and also for the reason that the insured were not fair in giving the requisite and material particulars, the Corporation resisted the claim and sought for a dismissal of the suit to recover the amount payable under the policy, which suit was instituted by the plaintiff as the husband of Ranganayagi. In the reply statement, the plaintiff pleaded that there was no such material misrepresentation and the contract of insurance having become final and irrevocable, the money was payable. He denied that his wife was suffering from tuberculosis and reiterated that the last child was born to the lady only on May 18, 1959.On the above material pleadings, the following issues were framed :

1. Has there been suppression of the fact in the proposal and personal statement that Ranganayagi was suffering from tuberculosis ?

2. Has there been suppression of the fact that she was under treatment within five years prior to the date of proposal, and whether false statement was made that she was of sound health and did not consult doctor within five years prior to the proposal ?

3. Whether she delivered a child within six months prior to the proposal and whether false statement was made that the last delivery was only on May 18, 1959 ?

4. Whether the defendant can avoid payment of the amount insured on the above grounds ?

5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ?

The learned trial judge found each of the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the action. It is as against this the present appeal has been filed.

The learned counsel for the appellant persuasively contended that there is no adequate proof that Ranganayagi was suffering from tuberculosis at or about the time when the proposal for insurance was made and on a careful and fair perusal of the relevant documents filed in the action it cannot be reasonably said that Ranganayagi suppressed any material facts or gave out deliberately any mis-statements, so as to mislead a public body and gain an advantage for herself. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, however, laid stress upon the fact that as it is now proved beyond reasonable doubt that the certificate of birth, exhibit B-19, produced by the plaintiff related to a child born to a different family and as it has been established beyond doubt and not even in dispute before us that the last child of the plaintiff was born on August 31, 1959, as seen from exhibit A-3, there has been a deliberate mis-statement regarding a positive fact and that by itself is sufficient for the Corporation to negative the claim.Exhibits B-1, B-5