IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (215)

RSA-653-2001(O&M)

Reserved on : 16.03.2026 Pronounced on : 24.03.2026 Uploaded on : 25.03.2026 Pargan Singh ……Appellant Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate, and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this court, challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.01.1999 passed by the learned trial court dismissing his suit for declaration and the judgment dated 09.08.2000 passed by the learned First appellate court vide which the appeal preferred by him against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, has also been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the plaintiff, namely Simarjeet Kaur, had obtained a life insurance policy on 14.08.1989 from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “LIC”). At the relevant time, she was allegedly suffering from chronic fever and Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a form of blood cancer, and she expired on 30.01.1991. The claim under the policy was repudiated by LIC vide letter dated 30.03.1992 on the ground that the insured had been suffering from ailments since December 1987, i.e., prior to the issuance of the policy, and had concealed material facts.

2.1 Upon learning of the repudiation, the appellant addressed a letter dated 02.06.1992 to LIC requesting refund of the premiums on an ex gratia basis. Pursuant thereto, he received a sum of Rs.15,434/- in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the said policy, thereby discharging LIC from all liabilities. However, thereafter, the appellant issued a legal notice dated 20.03.1993, which was duly replied to by the respondents. Subsequently, the appellant instituted a suit for declaration on

07.06.1993.

3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit, raising various preliminary objections. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for?

OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

5. Relief.

5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.1999 by giving issue-wise findings. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, who, vide judgment and decree dated 09.08.2000, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

6. Still feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff has knocked the door of this Court by way of filing a regular second appeal praying that the same be accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below be set aside and their suit be decreed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below were contrary to law and facts on record. It was argued that the repudiation of the insurance claim by the respondent–LIC was arbitrary and unjustified, as there was no intentional concealment of any material fact by the insured at the time of obtaining the policy. He submitted that the insured had not been suffering from any serious ailment to her knowledge at the rele