Allowed

Prabhakar Mohapatra v. Chairman,Life Insurance Corp of India,Mumbai

Orissa HC20 Oct 2022WP(C)/371/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged repudiation of three life insurance claims after policy commencement three years earlier. The High Court held repudiation barred by Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, and quashed it, directing payment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned repudiation set aside and quashed; Opposite party directed to pay claim with interest at 5% per annum.

Prabhakar Mohapatra Vs Chairman,Life Insurance Corp of India,Mumbai — Insurance | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.371 of 2016

¶3

(Through Hybrid mode)

¶4

Prabhakar Mohapatra

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, 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

¶12

JUDGMENT 20.10.2022

¶13

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

¶14

(i) Policy nos.373078101 dated 14^th April, 2004, commencing from that date;

¶15

(ii) Policy no.373078102 dated 14^th April, 2004, commencing from that date; and

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

(iii) Policy no.373078103 dated 14^th April, 2004, commencing from that date.

¶18

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 22^nd February, 2008 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 on 14^th April, 2004. In the circumstances, the repudiation stood barred by section 45 in Insurance Act, 1938.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 for 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 from 14^th April, 2004. As aforesaid, the DLA died on 30^th July, 2005. There was no event of

¶21

WP(C) no.371 of 2016 Page 2 of 3

¶22

Sks

¶23

subsequent revival of the policy and none has urged there was rider to it. In the circumstances, the repudiation on 22^nd February, 2008 is clearly beyond the time allowed, to allege misrepresentation by the DLA.

¶24

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 8^th January, 2016 (date of presentation of the writ petition) till date of payment.

¶25

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

¶26

WP(C) no.371 of 2016 Page 3 of 3

Prabhakar Mohapatra v. Chairman,Life Insurance Corp of India,Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar Mohapatra v. Chairman,Life Insurance Corp 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.

Santilata Satpathy Vs LIC of India,Mumbai

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