The obligation of full disclosure in insurance contracts and the implications of suppression of material facts are emphasized.

1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 29.6.2016 of the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri passed in CC / 118/2013 by the O.P / Appellant.

2. The Complaint Case germane in the petition is that the husband of the Complainant Subhash Chandra Bose (since deceased) had taken LIC’s Jeeven Saral (with profit) Policy from OP No. 4 being Policy No. 455154367 for a period of 27.7.2009 to 27.7.2024. The husband of the Complainant paid premium of Rs. 6125 The Complainant was the nominee of the said LIC’s Jeevan Saral Policy. On 25.1.2012 husband of the Complainant became ill and was diagnosed “acute Cerebellar Hemorrhage with Intraventricular Extension”. He was died on 3.2.2012 due to acute cerebral hemorrhage at Touch Nursing Home, Jalpaiguri. Thereafter, the Complainant filed claim before the OP No. 4. On 4.4.2013, OP No. 3 issued a letter to the complainant for repudiation the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the deceased assured false answered in the proposal form in Question No. 11. It is also case of the Complainant that OP No. 5 filed in the form and he did not explain all questions in Bengali to the deceased. OP No. 4 verified all the documents and proposal form and after fully verifying and satisfying the documents and the proposal form, then policy was issued to the deceased Subhash Chandra Bose. The Complainant party made several correspondences with the OPs, but the OPs made silence. Finding no alternative, the Complainant has approached before Forum for payment of assured sum as per policy condition.

3. On hearing both sides, learned DCDRC allowed the Complaint Case on 29.6.2016.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, OP - LIC filed this Appeal.

5. During the course of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits mainly on ‘suppression of earlier diseases’ of Complainant. On the other hand, learned Advocate of the Respondent submits that there is no illegality of the order passed by learned DCDRC and the same should be affirmed.

6. Now, over the issue of “Suppression of material facts” the observation of Apex Court is as follows:
D. Srinivas v. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors., (2018) I CPJ 21 (SC)=II (2018) SLT 294=2019(1) CPR 16 (SC)
“When the pre - condition of medical examination of the insured before accepting the premium is not adhered to, it may be inferred to have been waived.”
LIC of India v. Manish Gupta , (2019) III CPJ 31 (SC)=VI (2019) SLT 409.
“Non - disclosure of any health event is specifically set out as a ground for excluding the liability of the insurer.”
Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar & Ors. v. LIC of India, Civil Appeal 8245 of 2015)
“Claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of suppression of previous disease, if it has no connection or nexus with death.”
Mithoolal Nayak v. LIC of India , 1962 (SLT SOFT) 241=AIR 1962 SC 814
“No policy of life insurance, after the expiry of 2 years from the date on which it was effected, be called in question by an insurer on the ground that a statement made in the proposal for insurance was inaccurate or false.”
LIC of India v. Asha Goel , I (2001) SLT 89=(2001) 2 SCC 160
“For determination of the question whether there has been suppression of any material facts it may be necessary to also examine whether the suppression relates to a fact which is in the exclusive knowledge of the person intending to take the policy and it could not be ascertained by reasonable enquiry by a prudent person”. “ No policy can be questioned on any grounds after the lapse of 2 years. S.45 of Insurance Act .
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt G.M. Channabasamma , I (1991) ACC 411 (SC)=(1991) 1 SCC 357
“It is well settled that a c