Allowed

Santilata Satpathy v. LIC of India,Mumbai

Orissa HC20 Oct 2022WP(C)/3697/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, cuttack allowed a writ petition filed by a nominee challenging the repudiation of life insurance claims. The court held that the repudiation filed over ten years after policy commencement was barred by Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, in the absence of fraud.

What did the court decide?

Impugned repudiation set aside and quashed; Opposite party directed to pay on policies within two months.

Santilata Satpathy Vs LIC of India,Mumbai — Insurance | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.3697 of 2016

¶3

(Through Hybrid mode)

¶4

Smt. Santilata Satpathy

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1^st Floor, Mumbai and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Advocates appeared in this case :

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Singh, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. P. Panda, Advocate Mr. I. Acharya, Advocate

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUDGMENT 20.10.2022

¶12

1. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is nominee under three life insurance policies taken by Rajendra Satapathy, since deceased. All three policies were taken from opposite party no.1 (LIC of India). Particulars of the policies are given below:-

¶13

(i) Policy nos.570871885 and 570871891, both dated 10^th October, 2002 commencing from that date; and

¶14

(ii) Policy no.571443876 dated 28^th May, 2004 commencing from that date.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

2. On 27^th July, 2005, the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) met with motor accident. On 30^th July, 2005 the DLA succumbed to the injuries. The insurance company by letter dated 14^th September, 2015 repudiated claims under the policies alleging withholding material information regarding previous policies, at the time of effecting the assurances with them. Mr. Singh submits, the repudiation came long after expiry of three years from commencement of the policies. In the circumstances, the repudiation stood barred by section 45 in Insurance Act, 1938.

¶17

3. Mr. Acharya led by Mr. Panda, learned advocates appear on behalf of the insurance company. Mr. Acharya submits, the repudiation was duly made and there should not be interference.

¶18

4. Section 45 bars calling into question policy of life insurance on any ground whatsoever after expiry of three years from date of the policy or from date of issuance or date of commencement or date of revival or date of rider to the policy, whichever is later. Sub-section (2) provides for ground of fraud in calling into question a policy of life insurance, within the time provided. In this case the time is to be reckoned from commencement of policies/risk. All three policies commenced as aforesaid. The DLA died on 30^th July, 2005. There was no event of subsequent revival of the policy and none has urged there was rider to it. In the circumstances,

¶19

WP(C) no.3697 of 2016 Page 2 of 3

¶20

Sks

¶21

the repudiation on 14^th September, 2015 is clearly beyond the time allowed, to allege misrepresentation by the DLA.

¶22

5. Impugned repudiation is set aside and quashed. Opposite party no.1 will forthwith pay on the policies. In event payment is not made by 15^th November, 2022, the aggregate amount will carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum simple calculated from 26^th February, 2016 (date of presentation of the writ petition) till date of payment.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge

¶24

WP(C) no.3697 of 2016 Page 3 of 3

Santilata Satpathy v. LIC of India,Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santilata Satpathy v. LIC of India,Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Ray Vs Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sambalpur

Bm, Sahara India, Dhanupali Branch Vs Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sambalpur

Ekangini Naik Vs the Manager in Charge, Magma Hdi, General Insurance Company Ltd., Bbsr

M/S. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. Vs M/S. Adarsh Noble Corporation Ltd.

Prabhakar Mohapatra Vs Chairman,Life Insurance Corp of India,Mumbai

M/S.Amazing India Contractors Pvt.Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India