1. COUNSEL for the petitioners present. Arguments heard. The petitioner M/s Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited repudiated the claim made by nominee of the deceased on the ground that the deceased/insured Nareshbhai M. Rathod had proposed with various Insurance Companies about Life Insurance Policies, but the same fact was not disclosed. The Insurance Company pointed out that it is a suppression of material fact. The insured had suppressed about the proposal of the Life Insurance Company with another Insurance Company i.e. Max Newyork Life Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ -, but the counsel for the petitioners insists that it was for Rs.11,00,000/ -.
2. THE State Commission held that the repudiation was not valid and placed reliance on the judgment of this Bench in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited and Anr. Vs. Rayani Ramanjancyulu, 2014 3 CPJ 582 and also on the judgments in the cases of deceased Ramji Parshottambhai Parmar Vs. Avida Life Insurance Company Limited in Appeal No. 1753 of 2010 and in LIC of India and Anr. Vs. Vidya Devi and Anr.,2012 3 CPJ 288 (NC).
3. COUNSEL for the petitioners has invited our attention towards para No. 17 of the judgment in the case of Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 4 CPJ 8 (SC), which runs as follows: -
17. The term "material fact" is not defined in the Act and, therefore, it has been understood and explained by the courts in general terms to mean as any fact which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining whether he would like to accept the risk. Any fact which goes to the root of the Contract of Insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be "material". We are of the considered view that Para No. 20 is also important and answers the above said knotty problem. Para No. 20 runs as follows: - "20. The upshot of the entire discussion is that in a Contract of Insurance, any fact which would influence the mind of a 1 2 prudent insurer in deciding whether to accept or not to accept the risk is a "material fact". If the proposer has knowledge of such fact, he is obliged to disclose it particularly while answering questions in the proposal form. Needless to emphasise that any inaccurate answer will entitle the insurer to repudiate his liability because there is clear presumption that any information sought for in the proposal form is material for the purpose of entering into a Contract of Insurance".
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the alleged omission made by the insured does not influence the mind of a prudent insurer in our judgment cited above III (2014) CPJ 582 . We find no merit in this case and therefore, dismiss the Revision Petition.
