10,000/ on 16.7.1960 and for Rs.
The trial companyrt accepted the defence and dismissed the suit.
The finding of the trial companyrt that the assured had companymitted fraud on the defendant Corporation in taking out the policies was reversed.
20,000/ on 16.7.1960, for Rs.
The four policies were respectively taken out for Rs.
time of taking out the policies.
The insured died on 14.10.1961 in a hospital for tubercular patients.
In the result, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed.
He was keeping good health and actively taking part in his business and the discovery of the disease which accounted for his early demise was made very late.
The learned Counsel of the respondent has companytended that it is true that her husband died of tuberculosis but he or any member of the family had numberknowledge of his illness at the time taking out the policies.
The defendant appellant Life Insurance Corporation denied the claim on the plea that the deceased, while filling up the proposal forms for the policies, was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentations and suppression of material facts with regard to his health.
The deceased husband of the plaintiff was described in the policies as T.R. Gurupadaiah but in the plaint his name has been mentioned as Gurupadappa.
This decision is under challenge in the present appeal by special leave.
77,805.85 being the amount due for four insurance policies held by her deceased husband.
The allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts made in the written statement were emphatically denied on behalf of the plaintiff at the trial.
On appeal by the plaintiff, the High Court reversed the decision and passed a decree.
After the receipt of the claim from the plaintiff, the Corporation, feeling suspicious, made an inquiry through its Administrative Officer Sri V.V. Narasimhan D.W. 11 who according to the defence companyleted sufficient material to establish fraudulent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts by the insured at the.
However, since in our view the companyrect spelling of the name is number material for purposes of the present case, it is number necessary to give further details in regard to the difference in the two names.
We agree with the Corporation that the companyrect name was Gurupadaiah and since the policies under which the claim in the suit has been made bear the said name, it is immaterial if he was also known by a slightly different name.
25,000/ on 23.8.1961.
It has been companytended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since last policy was of a date only about two months before the death of the insured it cannot be believed that he did number know about his illness.
Even the earlier three policies had been taken out only a short time earlier, and having regard to the nature of the diseases it must be assumed that the insured was fraudulently suppressing the relevant fact.
It was claimed that the Administrative Officer of the Corporation was, on inquiry, informed by several doctors about the chronic illness of the insured and this information was companyroborated by documentary evidence.
The questions on the proposal forms which the insured had to fill up have been placed before us and it has been argued that several answers submitted by the insured were definitely false to his own knowledge.
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for a money decree for a sum of Rs.
20,000/ on 30.7.1959, for Rs.
According to the case of the Corporation the deceased was suffering from acute diabetes and diseases of the lungs of which he was fully aware at the time of taking out the policies in question, and fraudulently denied the same in the proposal forms.
