Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh, C. J. and U. N. Bhachawat, J.
RAMI BAI - Appellant
Versus
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Respondents
First Appeal 81 Of 1976
Decided On : 11/26/1980
The deeds in question do not fall into categories of those documents which by law are required to be attested and. therefore, for the proof of these deeds section 68 of the Evidence Act would not apply. It is section 67 which would apply. Section 67 does not lay down any particular mode of proof for proving that a particular writing or signature is in the hand of a particular person. Thus, the signatures may be proved in anyone or more of the following modes;-
(i) By calling a person who signed or wrote a document;
(ii) By calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written;
(iii) By calling handwriting expert;
(iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written;
(v) By comparing in Court, the disputed signature or and-writing with some admitted signatures or writing;
(vi) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it;
(vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person;
A signature is also proved to have been made, if it is shown to have been made at the request of a person by some other person, e.g. by the scribe who signed on behalf of the executant;
(viii) By other circumstantial evidence. [Para 11]
(2) Practice (Civil) - age proof of-opinion of a doctor is not final. [Para 13]
(3) Insurance Act, 1918-S. 45-Tnsurance Policy - when may be avoided by insurer-matter to be proved for this purpose-age fraudulently shown wrong-policy may be avoided.
On the analysis of section 45, the policy cannot be avoided on the ground of misrepresentation unless the following are established by the insurer :-
(i) the statement was incorrect or false;
(ii) such statement was on a material matter or that the statement suppressed fact which it was material to disclose:
(iii) the statement was fraudulently made; and
(iv) the policy-holder knew at the time of making the statement that it was false to his knowledge or the fact which it was material to disclose have been suppressed.
In other words, it is imperative that to avoid the contract the insurer must prove that material facts have been suppressed with the full knowledge of the assured. Proof of material and deliberate fraud is imperative. [Para 18]
Where the policy holder deliberately represented his age to be 48 years, while it was established that at that time he was above 60 years, it was fraud practiced on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was not bound by the Insurance Policy and could avoid it. [Para 19]
(4) Insurance Act, 1938-S. 45-insured died within two years of the insurance-section 45 does not apply. [Para 21]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Evidence of documents not requiring attestation is primarily proved under Section 67 of the Evidence Act, which allows proof through various methods such as calling the person who signed the document, handwriting experts, or comparing signatures in court (!) .
The age of the insured at the time of the proposal was established through multiple documentary evidences, including partnership deeds and entries in the voters list, which indicate the insured was over 60 years old at that time (!) (!) .
The horoscope produced in support of the age claim was found to be spurious and not genuine, thus cannot be relied upon to establish the insured's age (!) .
The medical evidence and certificates relied upon to estimate the insured's age were discounted due to potential errors and the absence of ossification tests, leading to the conclusion that the insured was indeed over 60 years old at the time of the proposal (!) (!) .
The insured deliberately made a false statement about his age, claiming to be 48 years old when he was actually over 60, with the intention to secure insurance coverage, constituting fraud (!) (!) .
The insurance policy was issued based on this false statement, which was a material fact affecting the insurer's decision, and the insured's knowledge of his actual age renders the policy voidable due to fraud (!) (!) .
The policy cannot be enforced because the false statement about age was made deliberately, and the insurer proved that the insured practiced fraud in obtaining the policy (!) .
The provisions of the Insurance Act specify that policies obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation can be avoided, especially when the insured's false statement was a material fact and made with full knowledge of its falsity (!) .
The policy was obtained within the period where the insurer could call it into question, but the presence of fraud invalidates the policy regardless of the two-year limit (!) .
The case emphasizes that the insurer's right to avoid the policy is not limited to the two-year period if fraud is established, and the insurer successfully proved that the insured practiced fraud by misrepresenting his age (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the insurer was justified in refusing to pay the claim due to the fraudulent misstatement of age by the insured at the time of policy issuance (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated the 31st of January, 1976 of the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal. in regular Civil Suit No. 28-B of 1973, whereby plaintiff's suit for Rs. 25,000/ on the basis of insurance policy of her deceased husband has been dismissed.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the widow of one Topandas who died at Bairagarh in Bhopal on 8-8-1971 on account of congestive cardiac failure secondary to myocar-dial infection. Shri Topandas's (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) life was insured with defendant/respondent herein under policy No. 28300784, dated 29-5-1970, with effect from 18-3-1970. which was to mature on 18-3-1976, for rs. 25000/ -. The assured sum of Rupees 25000/-was payable either on the death of the insured or on maturity of the policy. The premium was payable in annual instalments each instalment being of Rs. 1892. 25 paise. The first instalment was paid on 18-3-1970 and the second on 10-4-1971. The plaintiff was the nominee of the deceased under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938.
( 3 ) THE deceased had declared his age 48 years in the proposal (Ex. P/1) as well as in his personal statement (Ex. P/2) and had submitted the horoscope (Ex. P/6) in proof of his age on the basis of which the respondent had admitted the said age.
( 4 ) ON the death of the deceased, the appellant made a claim for Rs, 25000/-as nominee of the deceased in the aforesaid policy of the deceased. The respondent repudiated the claim of the plaintiff vide its letter dated 8-3-1973 (Ex. P/15) on the ground that at the time of insurance the deceased was of a non-insurable age but he had induced the respondent to insure him giving a false statement about his age.
( 5 ) ON the refusal of the respondent to pay the appellant's claim, the appellant had filed the present suit contending that the deceased was born on 14-3-1922, his age on the date of the proposal (Ex. P/1 was 48 years as stated therein and the personal statement (Ex. P/2); that the age stated by the deceased was true; it was proved to the satisfaction of the respondent by producing horoscope (Ex. P/6) and thereafter it was admitted by the respondent; that a highly qualified doctor, N. P. Mishra (P. W. 1), who was appointed by the respondent, had after due examination of the deceased certified the age of the deceased to be 48 years on the date of the proposal; that after the proposal (Ex. P/1) was made by the deceased the respondent who had received a complaint about the age of the deceased had deputed its two officers to make enquiry about the age of the deceased and after the receipt of the report of those two officers, being satisfied about the correctness of deceased's statement about his age, the respondent had accepted the proposal, and therefore, the respondent was estopped from challenging the correctness of the age of the deceased and was liable to pay the sum assured to the appellant,
( 6 ) THE respondent who resisted the claim of the appellant inter alia contended in its written statement that the agp of the deceased was admitted by it on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding his date of birth as stated in the spurious horoscope that was produced by the deceased and that the admission of the age by the respondent was subject to the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy (Ex. P/9); that no enquiry was made by respondent's officials about the age of the deceased before the acceptance of the proposal or issuance of the policy (Ex. P/9) as there was no complaint received regarding the deceased's age at that time; that the insurance policy (Ex. P/9) was issued in utmost good faith on the basis of the statement that was made by the deceased in his proposal form (Ex. P/1) and his personal statement (Ex. P/2)and the declarations made therein; that as the deceased had died within 1 1/2 years of the insurance, in accordance with the practice prevalent the respondent
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
