IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because another view is possible from reading of the facts and the evidence in the case would not mean this court would be entitled to interfere in exercise of its powers under Section 96 CPC more so when interference is not warranted in the interest of justice.

Valmiki J. Mehra, J.—The appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India by means of present appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeks to impugn the judgment and decree dated 30.1.1999 of the trial Court whereby the suit of the respondent/plaintiff widow was decreed for Rs. 99,000 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization. The decree for recovery was passed in the suit which came to be filed on account of the appellant/corporation refusing to pay the entire amount of the life insurance policies.

2. The facts of the case are that the insured late Sh. J.P. Gupta, the late husband of erstwhile respondent (now represented by legal heirs) took out four policies of Rs. 40,000, Rs.10,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 20,000 of which the first was taken on 24.12.1975 and the last three on 28.3.1975. On one occasion only due to the fault of the agent the premium was not paid by which the policies got lapsed, however, the same were thereafter renewed/revived by the appellant/corporation on payment of the necessary insurance premium and other charges. Sh. J.P. Gupta expired on 20.7.1987. On filing of the insurance claims, though the value of policies was Rs.80,000 and bonus of Rs. 43,040 totaling to Rs.1,23,040, however, the appellant only paid a sum of Rs.45,103 i.e. amount due up to the date of revival of the policies and not for the amount thereafter. Accordingly, the widow Smt. Shanti Gupta filed the suit for recovery of Rs.77, 937 with interest and a consolidated figure of Rs. 99,000 was claimed.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant. The main issue which has been argued before this Court and which was also urged before the trial Court was issue No. 3 which reads as under:

3. Whether the rejection of the claim of the plaintiff was based on perverse and superfluous grounds and reasons? OPP

4. Finding of the trial Court with regard to the issue No. 3 is relevant and the same reads as under:

“The burden of proof of this issue was on the plaintiff. It was the plaintiff to prove the rejection is on superfluous grounds. The learned Counsel for plaintiff argued that when the policy has been revived then the effective date is to be counted from the date initially certificates were issued. The learned Counsel for defendant has not shown any authority that certificate is to be computed from the date of revival. Ii is apparent from the documents placed on the record that were executed in 1975 that time no suppression of facts is alleged regarding these documents. Even otherwise from the evidence it is established that the medical was got done at the time of renewal and to that effect Sh. R.P. Gupta has stated that the deceased was not suffering from any problem as per his statement and on the reports, however, deceased of cancer but at the particular time he was suffering by disease he has not confirmed and even he stated that the seriousness of the lever was never detected. Therefore, the rejection of the claim could not be on the sound ground even otherwise when policy has been revived then the date when initially the policies were taken that date is material and on that date no allegation has been made of suppression of fact, accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.”

5. The trial Court by discussing and analyzing the facts, evidences and the documents has come to a conclusion that there was no concealment of facts by the deceased at the time of renewal of the policies. Trial Court has also found that in fact the deceased was not suffering from cancer at the time when the policies were renewed. The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly held that appellant is not justified in not releasing the complete maturity amount and the bonus amount, for the benefit of the estate of the deceased.

6. Before this Court, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased did not disclose that he was suffering from grave ailments and which become