# Smt. Meena Sahu @ Meenu Sahu v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 486
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3521 of 2003
- **Bench:** R.K. Agrawal, Mrs.) Saroj Bala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-meena-sahu-meenu-sahu-v-life-insurance-corporation-of-india-and-others-40771
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Benefit of
Insurance Policy-Policy purchased on
31.10.98-died
on
14.1.2000-ause
of
death brain heamorhage-claim denied on
the ground of incorrect particulars given
in the form-as the assured was suffering
from various liver disorders-cirrhosis
recurrent
Jaundice
and
hepatic
encephalopathy
since
1997-held-the
Development
Officer
including
the
medical practitioner had examined the
insured-LIC can not dine the payment for
act and omission of his officers-direction
issued to pay the assured with 10%
interest within one month.

Held: Para 9

The L.I.C. of India, its agents and other
staff owe a responsibility to the person
to whom they sell insurance and they are
presumed to be acting in the interest of
the Corporation. The L.I.C. of India
cannot disclaim the liability to make
payment of assured amount under life
policy no. 310786680 for the acts and
omissions
of
its
agent
or
medical
practitioner appointed by it to examine
the
deceased
before
accepting
the
proposal.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC-814 distinguished.

## Text

486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE (MRS.) SAROJ BALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3521 of 2003

Smt. Meena Sahu @ Meenu Sahu

...Petitioner
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Pandey
Sri Rajesh Kesarwani

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.G. Padia
Sri Prakash Padia

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Benefit of
Insurance Policy-Policy purchased on
31.10.98-died
on
14.1.2000-ause
of
death brain heamorhage-claim denied on
the ground of incorrect particulars given
in the form-as the assured was suffering
from various liver disorders-cirrhosis
recurrent
Jaundice
and
hepatic
encephalopathy
since
1997-held-the
Development
Officer
including
the
medical practitioner had examined the
insured-LIC can not dine the payment for
act and omission of his officers-direction
issued to pay the assured with 10%
interest within one month.

Held: Para 9

The L.I.C. of India, its agents and other
staff owe a responsibility to the person
to whom they sell insurance and they are
presumed to be acting in the interest of
the Corporation. The L.I.C. of India
cannot disclaim the liability to make
payment of assured amount under life
policy no. 310786680 for the acts and
omissions
of
its
agent
or
medical
practitioner appointed by it to examine
the
deceased
before
accepting
the
proposal.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC-814 distinguished.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

1. This writ petition, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed for issuance of a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to make
payment of Rs.50,000/- P.T. 124-15 with
interest under the Life Insurance Policy
no.310786680.

The facts leading to the writ petition
put briefly are these:

2. The petitioner's husband Ashok
Babu Sahu had purchased Life Insurance
Policy no. 310786680 on 31.10.1998 for a
sum of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner's
husband who was admitted in Anand
Hospital, Allahabad on 10.1.2000 expired
on 14.1.2000 at 8 a.m. due to brain
heamorrhage.
The
petitioner/nominee
filed
assurance
claim
before
the
respondents which was repudiated on the
score that the answers given to the
question no. 11 (a) (b). (d) and (i) of
proposal for insurance were incorrect as
the assured suffered from various liver
disorders such as cirrhosis, recurrent
jaundice
episode
and
hepatic
encephalopathy since June 1997 and was
operated for piles in July 1998. The
petitioner filed a writ petition against the
order of repudiation of claim dated
30.8.2000 before this Court which was
registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
43751 of 2001-Smt. Meena Sahu alias
Meenu Sahu Versus Life Insurance
Corporation of India and others. This
Court vide order dated 21.12.2001 finally
1 All] Smt. Meena Sahu @ Meenu Sahu V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others
487
disposed of the writ petition and directed
the respondents to decide the pending
representation within a time bound period.
In compliance of the order of this Court
the petitioner filed a representation dated
25.1.2002. The representation of the
petitioner in relation to Life Insurance
Policy no. 310786680 was rejected vide
order dated 27.3.2002 on the ground that
on the date of proposal the life assured
was a patient of jaundice and he
suppressed this material fact while filling
in the proposal form. The assured had
taken another Life Insurance Policy of
Rs.50,000/- under table and term 74-15 on
25.9.1997 being policy no. 310474179.
The claim of the petitioner in relation to
the said Life Insurance Policy was
accepted. The contention of the petitioner
is that the claim has been repudiated on
flimsy grounds without any enquiry.
According to the petitioner her claim for
the amount assured under Life Insurance
Policy of her husband has been illegally
repudiated by the respondents, therefore,
she is entitled to interest at the rate of
18% per annum.

3. On behalf of the respondents Sri
Sant Lal, Deputy Manager of Life
Insurance
Corporation
of
India,
Divisional Office 19-A, Tagore Town,
Allahabad, has filed a supplementary
counter affidavit. The respondents have
admitted that the life insurance policy in
question was issued by the corporation in
favour of the assured deceased under the
proposal form submitted on 31.10.1998
(Annexure-3 to the supplementary counter
affidavit). The respondents have admitted
that the Medical Examiner, L.I.C. of India
had submitted confidential report on
31.10.1998 (Annexure-4 to the SCA).
According to the respondents the life
insurance policy was issued in favour of
the assured by the corporation on
3.11.1998 (Annexure-5 to the SCA).

4. The petitioner has filed a
supplementary
rejoinder
affidavit
reiterating the averments made in the writ
petition. According to the petitioner her
husband died due to brain haemorrhage as
is evident from the death certificate. She
has denied that material facts about the
illness were concealed by her husband.
The petitioner in her supplementary
rejoinder affidavit has emphatically stated
that her husband was not suffering from
any disease at the time of purchasing the
policy in question. According to her the
respondents have not produced any
evidence in support of their allegation that
the assured was suffering from jaundice
prior to and on the date of filling in of the
proposal form.

5. We have heard Sri R.S. Pandey,
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia,
learned counsel for the respondents and
have scrutinized the record in minute
details.

6. This fact has not been challenged
that
the
life
insurance
policy
no.
310786680, for sum assured Rs.50,000/-
was issued on 3.11.1998 under proposal
form dated 31.10.1998 (Annexure-3 to the
SCA) in favour of the assured, the
husband of the petitioner. The petitioner's
husband/assured died on 14.1.2000 at
Anand Hospital, Allahabad. The claim of
the petitioner for the assured amount of
Rs.50,000/- under the life insurance
policy no. 310786680 has been repudiated
on
the
ground
that
the
material
information
about
his
health
were
suppressed by the deceased at the time of
filling in the proposal form. According to
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
the respondents the life assured remained
admitted in the Raj Nursing Home from
29.6.1997 to 2.7.1997 for the treatment of
hepetic encephalopathy jaundice since
June 1998. The contention of the
respondents is that the assured had
answered all the questions posed in
column no. 11 of the proposal form in
negative.

7. The proposal form (Annexure-3
to the SCA) has not been filled in the own
hand writing of the assured. The assured
was not an educated person as in column
no. 5, which relates to the educational
qualification, home education has been
mentioned. Column no. 11 (a) to (i) have
been filled in by an agent. Column no. 3
of the confidential report of the agent
enclosed with the form indicates that the
assured was aged 36 years and was a
healthy person. The Development Officer
submitted the certificate stating that the
facts stated in the proposal form are true
and correct to his knowledge and belief.
The
medical
examiner's
confidential
report (Annexure-4 to the SCA) annexed
with the proposal form bears certificate
dated 31.10.1998 of medical examiner,
L.I.C. of India stating that life assured
was examined personally, in private and
has recorded the true and correct findings.
The answers to question no. 4 have been
written after ascertainment from the
person examined. Column no. 10 of the
medical examiner's confidential report
which was filled in after ascertaining from
the assured relates to the questions of
hospitalization, involvement in accident,
radiological, cardiological, pathological
tests under gone and current treatment.
All these questions have been answered in
the negative. The findings to the questions
no. 5 to 13 of medical examiner's
confidential report are based on personal
medical examination of assured by the
medical examiner of the L.I.C. of India.
The question no.10 of the report relates to
the presence of evidence of enlargement
of liver or spleen. The medical examiner
of L.I.C. of India has recorded his
findings in the negative. The finding with
regard to question no. 7 which relates to
abnormality found in the examination of
mouth, ear, nose, throat or eyes has been
recorded by the Medical Examiner in the
negative. The judicial notice can be taken
of the fact that the jaundice is a disease
characterised by yellowing of eyes, skin
etc. and enlargement of liver.

The deceased having died within two
years of taking Life Insurance Policy the
provisions of Section 45 of the Insurance
Act are not applicable to the present case.
The matter is governed by Section 19 of
the Indian Contract Act, which runs as
under:

"19.When
the
consent
to
an
agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or
misrepresentation the agreement is a
contract viodable at the option of the
party whose consent was so caused. A
party to a contract, whose consent was
caused by fraud or misrepresentation,
may, if the thinks fit, insist that the
contract shall be performed, and that he
shall be put in the position in which he
would have been if the representations
made had been true.
Exception-If
such
consent
was
caused by misrepresentation or by silence,
fraudulent within the meaning of section
17, the contract, nevertheless, is not
viodable, if the party whose consent was
so caused had the means of discovering
the truth with ordinary diligence.
Explanation.-A
fraud
or
misrepresentation which did not cause the
1 All] Smt. Meena Sahu @ Meenu Sahu V. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others
489
consent to a contract of the party on
whom such fraud was practiced, or to
whom such misrepresentation was made,
does not render a contract viodable."

"Misrepresentation" as defined under
section 18 of the Contract Act means and
includes-

(1) the positive assertion, in a manner
not warranted by the information of
the person making it, of that which is
not true, though he believes it to be
true;
(2) any breach of duty which without an
intent to deceive, gains an advantage
to the person committing it, or any
one
claiming
under
him,
by
misleading another to his prejudice
or to the prejudice of anyone
claiming under him;
(3) causing however innocently a party
to an agreement to make a mistake as
to the substance of the thing which is
the subject of the agreement"

8. The Corporation has repudiated
the claim on the ground of suppression of
material facts. There is no allegation of
playing fraud. The pleas taken by the
respondent Corporation for avoiding its
liability under the policy in question are
that the deceased made a declaration in
the proposal form that the statements and
answers contained therein were true in
every particular and that the assured
suppressed the material facts about his
health. The learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the assured
having suppressed material facts about his
health, the policy is void. It was argued
that acceptance of the proposal was
recommended by the doctor and agent
because of misstatements and suppression
made by the assured. The learned counsel
for the respondent in support of his
contentions relied on the decision in
Mitthoolal Nayak Versus L.I.C. of India,
AIR 1962 SC 814.

9. In the instant case, the proposal
form was not filled in by the deceased in
his own hand writing. The deceased had
no
educational
qualification.
The
deceased being a man of 36 years was
supposed to be a healthy person. The
medical examiner's confidential report
enclosed with the policy in question
reveals that no sign or symptoms of
suffering from any physical disorder more
particularly of jaundice were found in the
medical examination of life assured by the
doctor of the corporation nor the Life
Insurance Corporation has produced any
evidence
to
show
that
there
was
misrepresentation of facts which if know
earlier
would
have
stopped
the
Corporation from issuing the policy. The
medical examiner of the Corporation
having
examined
the
assured
and
submitted a favourable report regarding
his health, the Insurance Corporation
cannot wriggle out of the contract by
saying that it was void or viodable at its
option. It is not a case where the L.I.C. of
India would not have consented to the
contract
of
the
insurance
but
for
misrepresentation
or
suppression
of
material facts. The facts of the present
case are distinguishable from Mitthoolal
Nayak's case (supra). In the said case the
policyholder had taken policy a few
months before his death. In the present
case there is no evidence that the
policyholder was treated for any serious
ailment short time before the taking of the
policy. The L.I.C. of India, its agents and
other staff owe a responsibility to the
person to whom they sell insurance and
they are presumed to be acting in the
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
interest of the Corporation. The L.I.C. of
India cannot disclaim the liability to make
payment of assured amount under life
policy no. 310786680 for the acts and
omissions of its agent or medical
practitioner appointed by it to examine the
deceased before accepting the proposal.

10. In view of the forgoing
discussion, we allow the writ petition with
no order as to costs. The respondents are
directed to make payment of the assured
amount with interest under the life policy
no. 310786680 within a period of one
month from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SYED RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2282 of 2004

Smt. Neera Yadav
...Revisionist
Versus
C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)
...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Daya Shanker Misra
Sri Chandra Kesh Misra
Sri Gopal Chaturvedi
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri V.P. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri G.S. Hajela
Sri Baldeo Raj (In Person)
A.G.A.

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure-S-197Saenction
by
state
Government-for
prosecuting a serving Public Servant
under the provision of Prevention of
corruption Act 1988 as well as Indian
Penal Code necessary when the central
Government
has
already
granted
sanction u/s 19 of the Act of 1988.

Held: Para 91,98 & 125

In respect to a member of Indian
Administrative
Service
the
Cadre
controlling authority is Government of
India. We are of the view that whereas
conduct of a member of All India Service
is of concern of both the Governments,
namely, State Government and Central
Government,
the
ultimate
prevailing
authority is the Central Government and
not
the
State
Government.
 This,
however,
would
not
have
much
relevance in order to determine the
authority competent to grant sanction.

Once the authority competent to remove
a
public
servant,
has
recorded
its
satisfaction
and
has
granted
the
sanction, the requirement of any further
sanction
may
create
substantive
obstruction in the way of prosecution of
such public servant. There is no reason
or compulsion to assume a similar
scrutiny
by
a
different
authority
particularly
when
the
appointing
authority itself has analyzed the matter
and has recorded its satisfaction. It
would not only be superfluous but may
frustrate the very object of grant of
sanction.
A
member
of
Indian
Administrative Services working in State
cadre may develop, with the passage of
time, and in discharge of his duties,
cordial relations with the politicians and
others, who matter in the concerned
State.

Thus, answering question no.1, we are
not agreeable with the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that
sanction, under both the Acts, i.e., the
Act of 1988 & Cr.P.C., is necessary, for