 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 190 Decisions of Indian courts 5.1.4 The above principle has been reiterated in the judgments of the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India in the context of challenges by the claimants under a life insurance policy to the decision of the insurer to repudiate such policy. The decision in Mithoolal Nayak (supra), already referred to, has been followed in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. G.M. Channabasamma, (1991) 1 SCC 357 and more recently in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Goel, (2001) 2 SCC 160. 5.1.5 What constitutes a material fact, which affects the risk sought to be undertaken by the insurer, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case and can be established only by leading evidence. [See Seaton v. Bernard,(1900) AC 135] A suppression of a fact or a misrepresentation in relation to the health status of the insured, it has been held, will enable the insurer to repudiate a policy [Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sosamma Punnan, (1992) 74 Comp Cas 218 (Ker)]. However, the misstatement of age, for instance, need not in every case tantamount to a material misstatement although it would be relevant for fixing the quantum of premium in relation to the sum assured (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Vasappa, AIR 1987 Kar 216. 5.1.6 The courts in India (and the consumer fora) have been consistent in requiring the insurer to prove the existence of all the three conditions in the second part of section 45 where the insurer seeks to repudiate a life insurance policy after the expiry of two years of its coming into effect. [See Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Kusuma T. Rai, (1991) 70 Comp Cas 86 (Kar); Shanta Trivedi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1988 Del 39 and Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v. Smt. J. Vinaya, (2003) 1 CPJ 50 (NC)] In this context, the following observations of the Supreme Court in the recent decision of 2001 in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Goel (supra) are relevant (para 16, p.170 SCC): "In course of time the Corporation has grown in size and at present it is one of the largest public sector financial undertakings. The public in general and crores of policyholders in particular, look forward to prompt and efficient service from the Corporation. Therefore, the authorities in charge of the management of the affairs of the Corporation should bear in mind that its credibility and reputation depend on its prompt and efficient service. Therefore, the approach of the Corporation in the matter of repudiation of a policy admittedly issued by it, should be one of extreme care and caution. It should not be dealt with in a mechanical and routine manner." (emphasis supplied) 5.1.7 The decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Dharam Vir Anand, (1998) 7 SCC 348 underscores the distinction between "the date of the policy" and the "date of commencement of risk". In that case it was held that the liability of the insurer will not begin until the expiry of three years from the date of the policy, as specified in the policy. Since the death of the insured had occurred within three years of the said date of the policy (although beyond three years from the date of commencement of risk) the insurer was held not liable.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back