Orissa High Court
Reliance Life Insurance Company vs Pradeep Kumar Padhy on 22 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8555 Of 2014
(Through hybrid mode)
Reliance Life Insurance Company .... Petitioner
Ltd.
Ms. S. Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
Pradeep Kumar Padhy .... Opposite Party
Ms. D. Mohapatra,
Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
Order 22.03.2022
No.
8. 1. Ms. Biswal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the
insurance company and submits, challenge is against award dated 16th
December, 2013 made by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA). She
submits, inspite of requirement in the form, on details of other policies
availed by the deceased life assured (DLA), she had not disclosed
having taken seven other policies. This amounted to suppression and
misrepresentation. Hence, the repudiation was good.
2. Ms. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite
party (award holder) and draws attention to paragraph-9, wherefrom
relied upon passage is reproduced below.
// 2 //
"Moreover, no pinch of evidence produced on
behalf of the respondent-RLIC in respect of other
policy details enumerated in the table to show that
the DLA had suppressed "material fact" about those
previous policies. Thus, there is absolutely no
material on record that preceding 13.04.2010, the
date on which DLA had taken her first life insurance
policy, she had taken other policies embedded in the
table of the written statement in quick succession."
3. She relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Bar Council
of India v. Union of India reported in AIR 2012 SC 3246, paragraphs
31 to 33 to submit, the PLA is empowered to adjudicate and it has
adjudicated. The adjudication was upon hearing the parties. Principles
of natural justice were adhered to. Reasons have been given in the
award. There is no case for interference on judicial review.
4. It appears on face of impugned award that the DLA had clearly
omitted to mention details of policies she held, in the proposal form of
petitioner. It will appear from below extract from paragraph-8 in the
award.
"It is contended that omission to incorporate
all such previous policies in the proposal form
(Annexure-A & B) is a "material fact" for the RLIC
to decide whether to accept the proposal for last
insurance policy at all, in this connection, the
learned counsel has invited our attention to the
// 3 //
proposal form for the admitted insurance policies
giving rise to death claim where under item no.17 of
the form of the proposal, viz., "details of life
insurance policies held/proposal applied with life
insurance companies, (including the existing
policies with the RLIC)", Mamata Kumari Padhy
has put tick over the word "NO". In other words,
she clearly omitted to mention the details of the
policies entered in the table given above."
The Tribunal thereafter in paragraph-11 in the award also said
"Even if the DLA in concerned proposal
froms in questionnaire-29 had given answers in
negative that does not amount to any suppression of
"material fact". We repeat, that the factual matrix
does not appear to be a case of suppressing
information of "material fact" within the meaning of
Sec.45 of the Insurance Act, 1938."
5. Petitioner is the insurer in insuring life of the assured.
Petitioner was to take the risk. Petitioner formulated the query
regarding other life insurance policies held by the DLA, to be
declared. The PLA held, the omission to mention that the DLA already
held other life insurance policies, in putting tick against 'no' did not
amount to suppression of material fact. The PLA appears to have
adjudicated that such a query cannot be said to be probe of a material
fact.
// 4 //
6. On closer perusal and scrutiny of the award, Court was unable
to come across a finding of denial by opposite party. On query from
Court Ms. Mohapatra submitted, her client did hold subsisting life
insurance policies at the time she had filled out the proposal form for
obtaining insurance policy from petitioner. It is true that
misrepresentation, when alleged by petitioner, had to be proved by it.
Petitioner had demonstrated, as appearing from face of the award, the
DLA had indicated she did not have subsisting insurance policies at
the time she filled out the proposal form. Petitioner wanted
information that was in the personal knowledge of the DLA. Section
106 in Evidence Act, 1872 says burden of proving fact especially
within knowledge is upon him who has the knowledge. Petitioner
could not have known regarding existing policies held by the DLA. In
assessing whether it would take the risk it posed, inter alia, the
question regarding existing policies. The DLA said she did not have
existing policies. A clear question was put in the proposal form,
against which the DLA put answer contrary to special knowledge of
fact she had with her. Some evidence was there before the Permanent
Lok Adalat for it to find that there was suppression but it went on to
say the suppression was not of a material fact.
7. Impugned award is found to be perverse and is set aside.
// 5 //
8. The writ petition is allowed.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Sks
