answer given by the deceased policy-holder was not correct and he has
fraudulently suppressed the material facts because while he was treated
as an indoor patient before his death, there was an endorsement of the
doctor to the effect that he was suffering from “Seizure Disorder” since
1995 and stopped medication since 2001. It is not brought out by the
learned counsel for the Corporation as to who has made such statement
to the doctor of the Corporation and the said endorsement does not
disclose that for such disease, he was ever hospitalized. Moreover, such
endorsement does not disclose that he has undergone any test for such
disease. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Corporation
has not examined any doctor to prove such endorsement. It may not be
also out of place to mention here that the deceased policy-holder died
on 26.9.2004 after remaining for five days as an indoor patient. The
deceased policy-holder took the policies in the year 2002 and 2004.
Even if assuming that his medication continued up to 2001, obviously on
the date of policy undertaken, he was not suffering from any serious
illness and Annexure-7, which is the opinion of the treating doctor of
SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack shows that the deceased
policy-holder died due to “Septicaemia” as primary cause and “Drug
Rash” is a secondary cause. The doctor has not been examined to prove
the basic source of information about “Seizure Disorder” the deceased
policy-holder was suffering from 1995 till 2001 and thereafter on the
date of taking the policies also, the policy-holder was suffering from
such disease.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.5265 of 2009
Mrs. Mamata Satpathy
Versus
The Zonal Manager,
LIC of India and others
PRESENT :
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY
Date of judgment:16.01.2017
Citation: AIR 2017 Orissa 54
