The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the repudiation of a life insurance claim. The court held that repudiation was valid due to false declaration of qualification and income by the deceased proposer, and found no grounds to interfere with the Ombudsman's order.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 5111 of 2010 (L)
PETITIONER(S):
AMBILI SHYAM,AGED 45,W/O.SHYAM PRABHAKAR PAVIZHAM, MAHADEVIKAD.P.O,KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT BUSINESS INDIA PALACE, FLAT NO.4A MAVELIKKARA.P.O,ALAPPUZHA, PIN 690 101.
BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO
RESPONDENT(S):
1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(MKTG) LIC OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE MKTG/CRM/CRC DEPARTMENT, YOGAKSHEMA, MUMBAI.
2. THE ZONAL MANAGER,LIC OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE,ANNA ROAD, P.B.NO.2450 LIC OF INDIA BUILDING,CHENNAI-600 002.
3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, JEEVAN PRAKASH, P.B.NO.609,NAGAMPADOM KOTTAYAM-, 686 001.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, JEEVAN JYOTHI, MSM COLLEGE JN., KAYAMKULAM.
5. THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, 2ND FLOOR, CC.27/2603, PULINAT BUILDING, M.G.ROAD ERNAKULAM-, 682 015.
BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN BY ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESH BY ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SU/-
WP(C).No. 5111 of 2010 (L)
-2-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
R1(A): COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 12-8-2004.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
SU/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
WP(C)No. 5111 of 2010
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner's son late Chindu Syam took an insurance policy under the Jeevan Shree Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India for the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by submitting a proposal on 12.8.2004. In the proposal submitted by the petitioner's son, he had stated that he is an Electronics Engineer and his annual income is Rs.3,60,000/-. As a matter of fact the petitioner's son had not passed the BE Examination and he later committed suicide on 17.12.2005. The petitioner who was the nominee under the policy of insurance made a claim for the amount payable under the policy. The claim was repudiated by the fourth respondent and the decision communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 12.7.2006. After unsuccessfully moving the superior officers, the petitioner moved the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi by filing a complaint under rule 12(1)(b) read with rule 13 of the Redressal of the Public Grievances Rules. By Ext.P6 order passed on 15.1.2008, the Insurance Ombudsman held that the repudiation was valid and proper. The complaint
WP(C)No. 5111 of 2010
-2-
was accordingly dismissed. Hence this writ petition challenging the repudiation of the claim by the fourth respondent, Ext.P2 letter sent by the zonal office upholding the repudiation, Ext.P4 letter sent by the central office upholding the repudiation and Ext.P6 order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman rejecting the complaint and seeking the following reliefs:
WP(C)No. 5111 of 2010
-3-
parents. It is also not in dispute that in the proposal form the insured had declared that he holds a degree in Electronics Engineering and his annual income is Rs.3,60,000/-. He had also given his occupation as Electronics Engineer. The petitioner admitted in the complaint filed before the Ombudsman that her son did not pass the examination though he had completed the course on 12.8.2004, the date on which the proposal was submitted. It is also not in dispute that the insured was unemployed. In such circumstances, as a Jeevan Sree Policy with a minimum assured sum of Rs.5,00,000/- would not have been issued by the insurer but for the false declaration made by the insured in the proposal, it cannot be said that the repudiation was not in order. I therefore find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order or the repudiation of the claim by the insurer.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
Rkc
// true copy//
PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the repudiation of an insurance claim was justified due to false declaration of qualification and income by the proposer.
Whether the High Court is inclined to interfere with the valid repudiation of the policy claim.
Whether the order of the Insurance Ombudsman dismissing the complaint should be quashed.
Ambili Syam
Life Insurance Corporation of India
The Insurance Ombudsman
P.N.Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
