IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Appeal under and in terms of Section 5 of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No 10 of 1996 read with the provisions of Chapter LVIII of the Civil Procedure Code.

Lakshman De Fonseka, SC. CHC. Appeal No. 25/2011 No. 180B, Koswatta Road, Nawala, H.C. (Civil) 248/2006(1)

Rajagiriya. PLAINTIFF Vs.

Eagle Insurance Co Ltd, No. 75, Kumaran Ratnam Road, Colombo 2.

DEFENDANTS AND NOW BETWEEN Lakshman De Fonseka, No. 180B, Koswatta Road, Nawala, Rajagiriya.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Vs.

Eagle Insurance Co Ltd, No. 75, Kumaran Ratnam Road, Colombo 2.

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT A I A Insurance Lanka PLC, No. 75, Kumaran Ratnam Road, Colombo 2.

ADDED DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT BEFORE: S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J. &

JANAK DE SILVA, J COUNSEL: Migara Doss with S. Gamage for the Plaintiff-Appellant Dr. Romesh de Silva, PC with Shanaka Amarasinghe and Vasantha Kumara Niles instructed by Julius & Creasy for the Defendant-

Respondent WRITTEN Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner on 01^st April 2021 SUBMISSIONS:

Applicant-Respondent-Respondent on 27^th April 2021 ARGUED ON: 29^th February 2024 DECIDED ON: 14^th June 2024 THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

1. The Plaintiff-Appellant abovenamed (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) by Plaint dated 26^th October 2006 instituted action against the Defendant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’) Eagle Insurance Co Ltd [Now A I A Insurance Lanka PLC] before the High Court of the Western Province (holden in Colombo) Exercising Civil Jurisdiction seeking inter alia to recover a sum of Rs. 45,000,000/- based on an insurance policy of which he was appointed the sole beneficiary.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

2. The Appellant sets out in his Plaint that Seneviwantha Wickramanayake Wijegunasekera Jasin Korale Arachchilage Chamil Goston (hereinafter ‘the Deceased’ or ‘the Insured’) contracted with the Respondent on or about 09^th September 2004 for a life insurance

1 policy, insuring inter alia the life of the Insured.

3. The Policy provided that the Appellant would be entitled to a payment of Rs. 30,000,000/-

in the event of death of the Insured by natural causes or a sum of Rs. 45,000,000/- in the event of death by accident.

4. The Deceased, despite being married at the time of effecting this Policy, had named the Appellant, his cousin, as the sole beneficiary in terms of the said Insurance Policy. As the Respondent submitted, it is indeed perplexing that the Insured opted to name his cousin

2 as the sole beneficiary of a life insurance policy while his wife and mother were alive.

5. Less than four months after effecting the said Insurance Policy, on 01^st January 2005, the Insured had died consequent to injuries sustained in a motor accident. The Respondent

1 Produced marked ‘X1’, p. 244 of the Brief

2 Proceedings dated 02nd February 2009, pp. 22 and 28

pointed out the circumstances of the death as suspicious. Indeed, the evidence led at the trial reveals that the accident had occurred when the Deceased rode head-on into an oncoming lorry resulting in a collision. It is also evident from the record that the Magistrate ruled out any criminal negligence on the part of the lorry driver following an inquiry.

6. According to the Appellant, following this death, he had claimed on the Policy on or about 19^th April 2005, which the Respondent Insurance Company refused to honour

3 despite duly accepting the same.

7. The Defendant-Respondent, by their answer dated 23rd May 2007, apart from questioning the circumstances surrounding the death, have averred that the Deceased had provided them with misleading information in the Proposal Form and the

4 Questionnaire in breach of the principle of uberrimae fidei when they entered into the Policy. The issues raised before the High Court specifically contain issues concerning uberrimae fidei on the part of the Insured.

8. By judgment dated 16^th June 2011, the learned High Court Judge found in favour