Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. G. M. Channabasamma
Mallikarjunaih. In his statement before the court in September 1966 he claimed to have treated Gurupadaiah from 1953 to 1957. He was charging fee for his services but on a concessional rate as he was a tenant in the house belonging to Mallikarjunaih. According to the plaintiffs case, certain dispute had arisen between the two which ultimately led to Dr. Kumars vacating the house in 1959. The witness has denied the dispute but has admitted the tenancy and the fact that he left the house in 1959. In support of his claim to have treated the insured, he produced a chit Ex. D-33, containing an account of the payments from patients. The document is a single loose sheet of paper containing the accounts of 8 patients out of who only Gurupadaiahs name finds place therein. No other patients name is mentioned in the slip. The witness has not offered any explanation for this exceptional treatment given to Gurupadaiah in mentioning his name in Ex. D-33. There is also an obvious discrepancy in the sheet with respect to the dates which the witness has explained by saying that it was a mistake. According to his further evidence Gurupadaiah again contacted him in 1960, but he has not produced any document similar to Ex. D-33. In answer to a question as to why he had struck off some other name at the top of Ex. D-33 and had written the name of Mallikarjunaih, Dr. Kumar stated that he did so as at that time he might not have any other paper with him. Having regard to all the circumstances pointed out by the High Court, we agree with its conclusion that the evidence of DW 4 cannot be relied upon for holding that Gurupadaiah was under his treatment in 1957, 1960 or at any point of time9. Another medical practitioner Dr. H. N. Gangadhar was examined as DW 2. He was the family doctor of Mallikarjuniah and denied that Gurupadaiah was his patient. He, however, stated that he had given to Gurupadaiah two injections of anacobin in October 1958 and another in November 1958. According to his evidence anacobin injections are harmless and can be given even to healthy men as tonic; and generally they are given for general weakness, anaemia, sprain and a number of other diseases including diabetes. There is no reason to disbelieve Dr. Gangadhar. But his evidence does not take us beyond showing that the insured had taken in 1958 three injections of anacobin which, according to the doctors evidence, does not lead to any conclusion about the disease. The next witness Dr. Siddalingaih DW 3 was working in the T.B. Hospital, Tumkur, where Gurupadaiah was admitted as an indoor patient with severe cough trouble and chest pain. The doctor was in LMP, but did not hold any special diploma for treatment of tuberculosis. According to the witness, Gurupadaiah had lost weight and was weak and died there on October 14, 1961. Having regard to the condition of the patient, the doctor opined that he might have been ill for more than six months before his admission in the hospital. He, however, accepted in cross-examination that if a man is weak and not in a position to resist infection from outside, galloping tuberculosis may attack him, and in such a case the duration for the symptoms to come out may be from a month to three months. His evidence also does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gurupadaiah was inflicted by a serious disease for a long time10. According to the evidence of three other doctors DW 5, DW 6 and DW 10, they had examined and treated a person bearing the name Gurupadayya or Gurupadaiah or Gurupadappa. But none of them is in a position to say that it was the same person as the deceased husband of the present plaintiff. They are not in a position to indicate anything whereby the identity of the patient can be proved or inferred. There is no mention of the fathers name or residence of the patient and their depositions can be of evidentiary value only if the statement of Dr. Kumar DW 4 is accepted. If the evidence of DW 4 is rejected, as we have already done, the evidence of the other three doctors by themselves is not of any help. As against this, the evidence of the Corporations doctors who had certified the good health of the insured at the time of taking out the insurance policies and who have been examined as defence witnesses, disproves the case of illness. It has not been suggested that these doctors were either won over by the insured or were negligent in performing their duty. They had submitted confidential reports about the health of the insured and were of the opinion that he was in good health. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that the defendant Corporation has failed to discharge the burden of proving the defence story about the serious illness of the insured at the time to taking out the insurance policies and knowingly suppressing the material information11. Before concluding we would like to say a few words about the role of V.V. Narsimhan, DW 11, who was the Administrative Officer of the Corporation and was in charge of the investigation of the death claims. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that certain observations in the judgment of the High Court amount to a criticism of the Administrative Officer. We do not think that the observations can be described as strictures, but, in any event, we would like to clarify the position that in our view no exception can be taken against the conduct of the officer in the matter of investigation of the present case. He was under a duty to have made a thorough inquiry in the circumstances, which certainly on the face appeared to be suspicious, and he was performing his duty with all seriousness as he ought to have done
0[ds]Having regard to the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the parties have rightly stated that this distinction is not material in the present appeal. If the allegations of fact made on behalf of the appellant Company are found to be correct, all the three conditions mentioned in the Section and discussed in Mithoolal Nayak v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 1962 (S2) SCR 571 must be held to have been satisfied. We must, therefore, proceed to examine the evidence led by the parties in the case8. The burden of providing that the insured had made false representations and suppressed material facts is undoubtedly on the Corporation. According to Mr. Vasudev the defence has discharged its duty by examining a number of doctors to establish that the insured was, at the time of taking out the polices, suffering from diabetes and other diseases. The appellant has heavily relied upon the evidence of DW 4 Dr. M.S. Kumar, who has deposed that he was giving Gurupadaiah injections of insulin, anacobia and vetabion and was also examining his urine daily which contained sugar. The witness has been disbelieved by the High Court on the ground of his enmity with GurupadaiahsG.B. Mallikarjunaih. In his statement before the court in September 1966 he claimed to have treated Gurupadaiah from 1953 to 1957. He was charging fee for his services but on a concessional rate as he was a tenant in the house belonging to Mallikarjunaih. According to the plaintiffs case, certain dispute had arisen between the two which ultimately led to Dr. Kumars vacating the house in 1959. The witness has denied the dispute but has admitted the tenancy and the fact that he left the house in 1959. In support of his claim to have treated the insured, he produced a chit Ex.containing an account of the payments from patients. The document is a single loose sheet of paper containing the accounts of 8 patients out of who only Gurupadaiahs name finds place therein. No other patients name is mentioned in the slip. The witness has not offered any explanation for this exceptional treatment given to Gurupadaiah in mentioning his name in Ex.There is also an obvious discrepancy in the sheet with respect to the dates which the witness has explained by saying that it was a mistake. According to his further evidence Gurupadaiah again contacted him in 1960, but he has not produced any document similar to Ex.In answer to a question as to why he had struck off some other name at the top of Ex.and had written the name of Mallikarjunaih, Dr. Kumar stated that he did so as at that time he might not have any other paper with him. Having regard to all the circumstances pointed out by the High Court, we agree with its conclusion that the evidence of DW 4 cannot be relied upon for holding that Gurupadaiah was under his treatment in 1957, 1960 or at any point of time9. Another medical practitioner Dr. H. N. Gangadhar was examined as DW 2. He was the family doctor of Mallikarjuniah and denied that Gurupadaiah was his patient. He, however, stated that he had given to Gurupadaiah two injections of anacobin in October 1958 and another in November 1958. According to his evidence anacobin injections are harmless and can be given even to healthy men as tonic; and generally they are given for general weakness, anaemia, sprain and a number of other diseases including diabetes. There is no reason to disbelieve Dr. Gangadhar. But his evidence does not take us beyond showing that the insured had taken in 1958 three injections of anacobin which, according to the doctors evidence, does not lead to any conclusion about the disease. The next witness Dr. Siddalingaih DW 3 was working in the T.B. Hospital, Tumkur, where Gurupadaiah was admitted as an indoor patient with severe cough trouble and chest pain. The doctor was in LMP, but did not hold any special diploma for treatment of tuberculosis. According to the witness, Gurupadaiah had lost weight and was weak and died there on October 14, 1961. Having regard to the condition of the patient, the doctor opined that he might have been ill for more than six months before his admission in the hospital. He, however, accepted inthat if a man is weak and not in a position to resist infection from outside, galloping tuberculosis may attack him, and in such a case the duration for the symptoms to come out may be from a month to three months. His evidence also does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gurupadaiah was inflicted by a serious disease for a long time10. According to the evidence of three other doctors DW 5, DW 6 and DW 10, they had examined and treated a person bearing the name Gurupadayya or Gurupadaiah or Gurupadappa. But none of them is in a position to say that it was the same person as the deceased husband of the present plaintiff. They are not in a position to indicate anything whereby the identity of the patient can be proved or inferred. There is no mention of the fathers name or residence of the patient and their depositions can be of evidentiary value only if the statement of Dr. Kumar DW 4 is accepted. If the evidence of DW 4 is rejected, as we have already done, the evidence of the other three doctors by themselves is not of any help. As against this, the evidence of the Corporations doctors who had certified the good health of the insured at the time of taking out the insurance policies and who have been examined as defence witnesses, disproves the case of illness. It has not been suggested that these doctors were either won over by the insured or were negligent in performing their duty. They had submitted confidential reports about the health of the insured and were of the opinion that he was in good health. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that the defendant Corporation has failed to discharge the burden of proving the defence story about the serious illness of the insured at the time to taking out the insurance policies and knowingly suppressing the material information11. Before concluding we would like to say a few words about the role of V.V. Narsimhan, DW 11, who was the Administrative Officer of the Corporation and was in charge of the investigation of the death claims. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that certain observations in the judgment of the High Court amount to a criticism of the Administrative Officer. We do not think that the observations can be described as strictures, but, in any event, we would like to clarify the position that in our view no exception can be taken against the conduct of the officer in the matter of investigation of the present case. He was under a duty to have made a thorough inquiry in the circumstances, which certainly on the face appeared to be suspicious, and he was performing his duty with all seriousness as he ought to have done
### Instruction:
Determine the likely decision of the case (acceptance (1) or rejection (0)) and follow up with an explanation highlighting key sentences that support this prediction.

### Input:
Mallikarjunaih. In his statement before the court in September 1966 he claimed to have treated Gurupadaiah from 1953 to 1957. He was charging fee for his services but on a concessional rate as he was a tenant in the house belonging to Mallikarjunaih. According to the plaintiffs case, certain dispute had arisen between the two which ultimately led to Dr. Kumars vacating the house in 1959. The witness has denied the dispute but has admitted the tenancy and the fact that he left the house in 1959. In support of his claim to have treated the insured, he produced a chit Ex. D-33, containing an account of the payments from patients. The document is a single loose sheet of paper containing the accounts of 8 patients out of who only Gurupadaiahs name finds place therein. No other patients name is mentioned in the slip. The witness has not offered any explanation for this exceptional treatment given to Gurupadaiah in mentioning his name in Ex. D-33. There is also an obvious discrepancy in the sheet with respect to the dates which the witness has explained by saying that it was a mistake. According to his further evidence Gurupadaiah again contacted him in 1960, but he has not produced any document similar to Ex. D-33. In answer to a question as to why he had struck off some other name at the top of Ex. D-33 and had written the name of Mallikarjunaih, Dr. Kumar stated that he did so as at that time he might not have any other paper with him. Having regard to all the circumstances pointed out by the High Court, we agree with its conclusion that the evidence of DW 4 cannot be relied upon for holding that Gurupadaiah was under his treatment in 1957, 1960 or at any point of time9. Another medical practitioner Dr. H. N. Gangadhar was examined as DW 2. He was the family doctor of Mallikarjuniah and denied that Gurupadaiah was his patient. He, however, stated that he had given to Gurupadaiah two injections of anacobin in October 1958 and another in November 1958. According to his evidence anacobin injections are harmless and can be given even to healthy men as tonic; and generally they are given for general weakness, anaemia, sprain and a number of other diseases including diabetes. There is no reason to disbelieve Dr. Gangadhar. But his evidence does not take us beyond showing that the insured had taken in 1958 three injections of anacobin which, according to the doctors evidence, does not lead to any conclusion about the disease. The next witness Dr. Siddalingaih DW 3 was working in the T.B. Hospital, Tumkur, where Gurupadaiah was admitted as an indoor patient with severe cough trouble and chest pain. The doctor was in LMP, but did not hold any special diploma for treatment of tuberculosis. According to the witness, Gurupadaiah had lost weight and was weak and died there on October 14, 1961. Having regard to the condition of the patient, the doctor opined that he might have been ill for more than six months before his admission in the hospital. He, however, accepted in cross-examination that if a man is weak and not in a position to resist infection from outside, galloping tuberculosis may attack him, and in such a case the duration for the symptoms to come out may be from a month to three months. His evidence also does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gurupadaiah was inflicted by a serious disease for a long time10. According to the evidence of three other doctors DW 5, DW 6 and DW 10, they had examined and treated a person bearing the name Gurupadayya or Gurupadaiah or Gurupadappa. But none of them is in a position to say that it was the same person as the deceased husband of the present plaintiff. They are not in a position to indicate anything whereby the identity of the patient can be proved or inferred. There is no mention of the fathers name or residence of the patient and their depositions can be of evidentiary value only if the statement of Dr. Kumar DW 4 is accepted. If the evidence of DW 4 is rejected, as we have already done, the evidence of the other three doctors by themselves is not of any help. As against this, the evidence of the Corporations doctors who had certified the good health of the insured at the time of taking out the insurance policies and who have been examined as defence witnesses, disproves the case of illness. It has not been suggested that these doctors were either won over by the insured or were negligent in performing their duty. They had submitted confidential reports about the health of the insured and were of the opinion that he was in good health. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that the defendant Corporation has failed to discharge the burden of proving the defence story about the serious illness of the insured at the time to taking out the insurance policies and knowingly suppressing the material information11. Before concluding we would like to say a few words about the role of V.V. Narsimhan, DW 11, who was the Administrative Officer of the Corporation and was in charge of the investigation of the death claims. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that certain observations in the judgment of the High Court amount to a criticism of the Administrative Officer. We do not think that the observations can be described as strictures, but, in any event, we would like to clarify the position that in our view no exception can be taken against the conduct of the officer in the matter of investigation of the present case. He was under a duty to have made a thorough inquiry in the circumstances, which certainly on the face appeared to be suspicious, and he was performing his duty with all seriousness as he ought to have done

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
High Court on the ground of his enmity with GurupadaiahsG.B. Mallikarjunaih. In his statement before the court in September 1966 he claimed to have treated Gurupadaiah from 1953 to 1957. He was charging fee for his services but on a concessional rate as he was a tenant in the house belonging to Mallikarjunaih. According to the plaintiffs case, certain dispute had arisen between the two which ultimately led to Dr. Kumars vacating the house in 1959. The witness has denied the dispute but has admitted the tenancy and the fact that he left the house in 1959. In support of his claim to have treated the insured, he produced a chit Ex.containing an account of the payments from patients. The document is a single loose sheet of paper containing the accounts of 8 patients out of who only Gurupadaiahs name finds place therein. No other patients name is mentioned in the slip. The witness has not offered any explanation for this exceptional treatment given to Gurupadaiah in mentioning his name in Ex.There is also an obvious discrepancy in the sheet with respect to the dates which the witness has explained by saying that it was a mistake. According to his further evidence Gurupadaiah again contacted him in 1960, but he has not produced any document similar to Ex.In answer to a question as to why he had struck off some other name at the top of Ex.and had written the name of Mallikarjunaih, Dr. Kumar stated that he did so as at that time he might not have any other paper with him. Having regard to all the circumstances pointed out by the High Court, we agree with its conclusion that the evidence of DW 4 cannot be relied upon for holding that Gurupadaiah was under his treatment in 1957, 1960 or at any point of time9. Another medical practitioner Dr. H. N. Gangadhar was examined as DW 2. He was the family doctor of Mallikarjuniah and denied that Gurupadaiah was his patient. He, however, stated that he had given to Gurupadaiah two injections of anacobin in October 1958 and another in November 1958. According to his evidence anacobin injections are harmless and can be given even to healthy men as tonic; and generally they are given for general weakness, anaemia, sprain and a number of other diseases including diabetes. There is no reason to disbelieve Dr. Gangadhar. But his evidence does not take us beyond showing that the insured had taken in 1958 three injections of anacobin which, according to the doctors evidence, does not lead to any conclusion about the disease. The next witness Dr. Siddalingaih DW 3 was working in the T.B. Hospital, Tumkur, where Gurupadaiah was admitted as an indoor patient with severe cough trouble and chest pain. The doctor was in LMP, but did not hold any special diploma for treatment of tuberculosis. According to the witness, Gurupadaiah had lost weight and was weak and died there on October 14, 1961. Having regard to the condition of the patient, the doctor opined that he might have been ill for more than six months before his admission in the hospital. He, however, accepted inthat if a man is weak and not in a position to resist infection from outside, galloping tuberculosis may attack him, and in such a case the duration for the symptoms to come out may be from a month to three months. His evidence also does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gurupadaiah was inflicted by a serious disease for a long time10. According to the evidence of three other doctors DW 5, DW 6 and DW 10, they had examined and treated a person bearing the name Gurupadayya or Gurupadaiah or Gurupadappa. But none of them is in a position to say that it was the same person as the deceased husband of the present plaintiff. They are not in a position to indicate anything whereby the identity of the patient can be proved or inferred. There is no mention of the fathers name or residence of the patient and their depositions can be of evidentiary value only if the statement of Dr. Kumar DW 4 is accepted. If the evidence of DW 4 is rejected, as we have already done, the evidence of the other three doctors by themselves is not of any help. As against this, the evidence of the Corporations doctors who had certified the good health of the insured at the time of taking out the insurance policies and who have been examined as defence witnesses, disproves the case of illness. It has not been suggested that these doctors were either won over by the insured or were negligent in performing their duty. They had submitted confidential reports about the health of the insured and were of the opinion that he was in good health. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that the defendant Corporation has failed to discharge the burden of proving the defence story about the serious illness of the insured at the time to taking out the insurance policies and knowingly suppressing the material information11. Before concluding we would like to say a few words about the role of V.V. Narsimhan, DW 11, who was the Administrative Officer of the Corporation and was in charge of the investigation of the death claims. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that certain observations in the judgment of the High Court amount to a criticism of the Administrative Officer. We do not think that the observations can be described as strictures, but, in any event, we would like to clarify the position that in our view no exception can be taken against the conduct of the officer in the matter of investigation of the present case. He was under a duty to have made a thorough inquiry in the circumstances, which certainly on the face appeared to be suspicious, and he was performing his duty with all seriousness as he ought to have done
