Find a Lawyer

High Court Appeal No. 25 of 1974, decided on 8th March, 1987.

---S.106(13)--Insurance policy--Joint policy by husband and wife--Two forms submitted separately--Policy whether joint or separate--Where life insurance policy was joint in names of both husband and his wife, but proposal forms were separately filed by them, both forms held, must be treated and construed together as they related to one single transaction--No bar existed that two proposal forms relating to one single transaction would he taken as separate information--Where information regarding earlier life insurance of wife was duly supplied by husband in his proposal form, wife would not be required to supply same information in her proposal form--Non-disclosure of such information by wife in her proposal form, would not amount to concealment of information in circumstances.

Anwar Hussain for Appellant.

Manoharlal for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 18th and 19th February, 1987.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the Respondent /Plaintiff and against the Appellant/ Defendant.

2. The Plaintiff /Respondent brought a suit against the appellant wherein it was stated that he alongwith his wife Mst.Halima Begum were jointly insured with the Defendant Company under Policy No.179341 firstly for a sum of Rs.25,000 for 25 years policy which was subsequently raised to Rs.50,000. The plaintiff alongwith his wife Mst.Halima Begum had gone to Lahore where said Mst.Halima Begum died on 1-6-1967 as a result of catching fire by bursting of the oil stove. The plaintiff /respondent reported about the death of Mst.Halima Begum to the appellant /defendant on 10-6-1967 and on the defendant's reply dated 13-6-1967 completed the formalities of the form sent to him and also attached all the necessary forms and documents with the respondent's covering letter dated 17-6-1967. As the appellant refused to settle the respondent's claim under the policy therefore the suit for recovery of Rs.50,000 was filed against the appellant. The suit was contested by the appellant and it was contended that the said insurance policy was null and void on account of the false statements, misrepresentation and non-disclosure as it was falsely mentioned in the proposal form that there were no assurances on the life of Mst.Halima and details of all other assurances were not disclosed in the proposal forms though asked for. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:

(i) Did Insurance Policy No.179341 issued by the defendant cover the risk in regard to death of Halima Begum

(ii) If issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative, whether the contract of insurance is void for any reason

(iii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled

On above issues parties led evidence and ultimately the learned Single Judge decreed the suit, hence the present appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended that the requirement of law was that the person who was filling in the proposal form and its accompanying declaration true facts. The policy may be issued in the joint name of husband and wife but the proposal form was separately filled and each party is responsible for giving correct answer. The learned Single Judge has considered the evidence on record and rejected the contentions of the appellant that any false information was given by the respondent. The respondent examined himself in support of his case and also Haji Syed Abdul Hamid, who acted as Insurance Agent in whose presence the two proposal forms were completed by Ataur Rehman. The Insurance Company examined Ataur Rehman as well as Hyder Ali, a former employee of Habib Insurance Company who produced the proposal forms Ex.31/2. The facts on record would show that plaintiff was approached by Haji Syed Abdul Hamid whose daughter was an insurance agent of the Insurance Company who took Ataur Rehman, the then District Manager of the Insurance Company to the house of the plaintiff on i.2-10-1966. Ataur Rehman filled in two printed proposal forms, Ex.32/1 relates to the plaintiff and Ex.23 relates to his wife Mst.Halima Begum deceased. These forms were filled in by Ataur Rehman in his own handwriting on the dictation of the plaintiff arid his wife: Ex.23 signed by Mst. Haleema bears the following question and answers:----

Question Answer

"6. Give details of all assurance upon your life including any cancelled within the past year. If none, state, "NONE".

(a) State name of Company, No. of Policy None

and Year.

(b) State whether accepted at ordinary Not applicable

rates as proposed or otherwise.

The plaintiff gave the following answers to the same questions in his own proposal form Ex.32/1:----

"6. Give details of all assurance upon your life, including any cancelled within the past year. If none, state "NONE".

(a) State name of company, No. of Policy Alico 700669

and Year. 20,000/

(b) State whether accepted at ordinary N . A . Habib K A ft

rates as proposed or otherwise. 7863 & 64 for

25,000/-

4. The case of the insurance company/appellant is that the answers given by Haleema Begum were not true because on 29-9-1966 she had submitted a proposal form to Habib Insurance Company Ltd. Karachi for an endowment policy on her life in the sum of Rs.25,000/-.

The case of the plaintiff /respondent is that the particulars of the previous insurance were in fact disclosed to the Insurance Company by the plaintiff himself in his own proposal form Ex.32/1 therefore it cannot be said that there was any non-disclosure of facts. Ataur Rehman was examined as witness No.2 on behalf of the defendant/ appellant and he has stated that Mst.Haleema or the plaintiff have not told him that the prior policy had been taken out in her name with Habib Insurance Company. However in cross-examination he has admitted that he had filled in two proposal forms one of Mst.Haleema Begum and the other of the plaintiff Exs.23 and 32/1 and the entries in Ex.32/1 are in his handwriting. Ex.32/1 has been signed by the plaintiff in his presence. He is unable to remember whether the attorney of Suria Iqbal had given him a chit containing the particulars of the policy taken over by the plaintiff with Habib Insurance Co. However he has admitted that he did not enter the information of the earlier policy in Ex.23 because it was a joint life policy. The admission of this witness has been taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge and in view of admission of D.W.2 the only conclusion would be that the information about the earlier policy was in the knowledge of D.W.2 and he had not entered that information in Ex.23 because it was a joint life policy. There is no bar of such a policy and when requisite information has been mentioned in Ex.32/1 it was not necessary to disclose the same in Ex.23 because the appellant had the knowledge of earlier policy. Haji Syed Abdul Hameed P.W.2 has stated that Mr. M . A . Rehman his immediate superior had signed Ex. 23 which D.W.2 has not denied. He has further stated that particulars with regard to the other insurance policies were not entered in Ex.23 or Ex. 24 but were written on a separate piece of paper which was delivered to him by the plaintiff and it was submitted by him to Mr..M.A.Rehman. Though the learned trial Judge has not accepted this statement of fact but as DW 2 could not remember whether such information was given to him but DW 2 has specifically mentioned that he had delivered such information to Mr.M.A.Rehman. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge that two proposal forms must be treated and construed together as they related to one single transaction is not open to any exception. The respondent had not concealed any fact. The appellant Company had already in its possession the information regarding earlier life insurance of Mst.Haleema Begum. The learned trial Judge has also accepted the reply of Ataur Rehman that he did not enter the information of earlier policy in Ex.23 as that was the joint life policy and this finding of the learned Single Judge is based on the correct appreciation of facts. The appellant is now trying to avoid their contractual obligation. Throughout the evidence the appellant company has not stated that the policy was not a joint policy. The respondent has not concealed this fact in his proposal form Ex.23/1. If the intention was to conceal such information then the plaintiff would have concealed this fact in his own policy. There is no rule that two proposal forms will be taken as separate information for it was a joint family policy.

5. In the result the appeal has no force the same is dismissed with costs.

H . B . T . S-100/ K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.