C. R.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN THURSDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1945 AS NO. 570 OF 2002 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2002 IN OS 478/1997 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM -----

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

1 ZONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE,ANNA SALAI, P.B.NO.2450,MADRAS.

2 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,JEEVANPRAKASH, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM. 3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, L.I.C.OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE NO.11, 39/1965,"KRISHNA KRIPA",SOUTHERN RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-16.

BY ADV SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

SMT.ROSAMMA VARKEY, W/O LATE P.I.VARKEY, ALAPPAT,PALATHINGAL,LURDPURAM, TRICHUR.

THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

SATHISH NINAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2023

J U D G M E N T

The defendant in a suit for money is the appellant.

The claim is for the sum assured under a life insurance policy on the life of late P.I.Varkey, the husband of the plaintiff.

2. On 01.11.1993, Sri.P.I.Varkey submitted Ext.A4 proposal for insurance on own life to the defendant. Based on Ext.A4 proposal, Ext.A5 policy dated 14.02.1994 was issued in favour of Sri.P.I.Varkey. The sum assured was ` 3 lakhs. On 10.07.1995, he died due to cardiac issues. On 04.09.1995, the plaintiff, who is the nominee under the policy claimed the sum assured. However, the claim was repudiated by the defendant alleging furnishing of false information and suppression of material facts by the assured in the proposal, regarding his health condition. It is thereupon that the suit has been instituted.

3. The defendants in their written statement reiterated their stand that the plaintiff is not entitled for any claim under the policy consequent on the suppression of material facts and furnishing of false information. It was contended that, in the proposal (Ext.P4), specific queries with regard to prior treatment and admission of the assured in the hospital, were wilfully and fraudulently answered in the negative and therefore, the defendants repudiated Ext.P4 policy.

4. The trial court though found that the assured-

late P.I.Varkey had not furnished all true facts in Ext.A4 proposal, and proceeded to find that Ext.A4 proposal was filled up by the agent/employee of the defendant company and that the assured could not be held responsible for incorrect facts in Ext.A4 proposal. The suit was decreed for the policy amount and benefits thereunder. It is aggrieved thereby that the defendants have come up in appeal.

5. The points that arise for determination are :-

1) Did the proposer/assured furnish false information in Ext.A4, the proposal for policy?

2) Is it open for the claimant to contend that the proposal form was filled up not by the proposer/assured but by an employee/agent of the Insurance Company and hence mentioning of false information in the proposal cannot be attributed to the proposer?

6. I have heard Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no appearance for the respondent.

7. A contract of insurance is a contract uberrima fidei meaning, “of utmost good faith”. The law with regard to insurance contracts, the consequence of furnishing false information and suppression of material information by the assured at the time of availing the policy, is too well settled. All material facts within the knowledge of the proposer are matters to be disclosed while submitting the proposal. The health condition of the proposer/assured is a factor relevant for the insurer to decide upon whether to assure on the life or in arriving at the quantum of premium payable.

8. In Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod (2019) 6 SCC 175, the Apex Court held:-

“The fundamental principle is that insurance is governed by the doct