IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-1211-1996 (O&M) Reserved on:-28.10.2025 Date of Decision : 29.10.2025 Ranjit Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS The Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Ms. R.K.Grewal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

Service of respondents No.5 to 7 dispensed with vide order dated 20.09.1996.

Respondent No.6 proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.09.1996 -.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant–plaintiff Ranjit Kaur against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.1995 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Samrala dated 4.8.1994 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Ranjit Kaur, widow of Kehar Singh, filed a suit for recovery of ₹73,500 against the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) through its Chairman and other officials (defendants No.1 to 4) and defendants No.5 to 7 being the legal representatives of the deceased Kehar Singh. The amount claimed comprised the assured sum of ₹50,000 under Policy No. 160102143, together with ₹23,500 as interest from 28.6.1988 to 29.5.1992, along with bonus and other consequential benefits. It was pleaded that the husband of the plaintiff, Kehar Singh, was serving as Kanungo under the Punjab Government and was a resident of village Sehjomajra, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. During his service, he applied for a life insurance policy with the defendant Corporation through its Samrala Branch. After completing all necessary formalities, including medical examination by the authorised medical officer of the LIC, the proposal was accepted and Policy No. 160102143 was issued on 27.12.1987 for an assured sum of ₹50,000. The authorised doctor of LIC had found Kehar Singh to be in sound health and medically fit at the time of issuance. Kehar Singh paid the requisite premium regularly until his death on 28.6.1988. Upon his death, the plaintiff, being the nominee under the policy, submitted the claim along with the original policy documents to the defendant Corporation. However, the claim was repudiated by LIC vide letter dated 1.6.1989, alleging suppression of material facts and fraudulent concealment of illness by the deceased at the time of obtaining the policy. It was stated that the deceased had been suffering from diabetes for 15 years and hypertension for two years prior to the proposal. The plaintiff asserted that the repudiation was wholly illegal, false, flimsy and against the terms of the contract. Consequently, the present suit was filed.

3. The defendants contested the suit, raising preliminary objections that the claim had already been duly investigated and repudiated under Section 45 of the Insurance Act. It was alleged that the deceased had fraudulently suppressed material facts regarding his health condition. As per the defendants, Kehar Singh was a known diabetic and hypertensive patient who was under oral hypoglycaemic and insulin treatment, and this was not disclosed in the proposal form dated 27.12.1987. It was further averred that the deceased fell ill within a month of the issuance of the policy and died within six months, which indicated concealment of true facts. Reliance was placed on the report of the C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana (Ex.D2/A) and certain leave applications (Ex.D3/1 to D3/6) said to have been taken on account of illness. Hence, the suit was prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4. The plaintiff filed replication denying all allegations of concealment and reiterated her original stand.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount as claimed in the suit from defendant No.1 to 7?

2. Whether the plaint