JUBILEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.-- -Through this appeal appellant has challenged the judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge-I/Insurance Tribunal Punjab, Lahore dated 7-2-2013 whereby claim of insurance filed by the respondent widow of the insured person Muhammad Ramzan Bhatti was accepted and appellant was directed to pay the policy proceeds amounting Rs.5,00,000 with accrued bonus under the policy along with liquidated damages as provided under section 118(2) of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 from the date of repudiation order i.e. 21-5-2012 at monthly rests @ 5% higher than the prevailing base rate till its realization.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that two instalments amounting to Rs.6,000, i.e. Rs.3,000 each was deposited by the insured person, who was a serving police Inspector and policy was given to him on 15-1-2012 whereas he died on 3-3-2012 due to heart attack. Argues that insured person did not provide correct information about his health as he was a cardiac patient, therefore, argues that the Insurance Company/appellant has rightly refused the claim under the policy and the order impugned passed by the learned Insurance Tribunal is not sustainable under the law. He has relied upon "Malik Muhammad Faisal and another v. State Life Insurance Corporation through Chairman and 2 others" (2008 SCMR 456).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent widow of the policy holder supports the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Argues that no case for interference has been made out as on the basis of evidence claim has been rightly accepted by the learned Tribunal; that the best evidence which could have been produced by the appellant has been withheld, therefore, under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 it will be presumed that the same was against the appellant.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at full length and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.
5. We have noticed that the learned Tribunal has discussed in detail every bit of evidence produced before it and came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company failed to prove that wrong information was given to the Insurance Company by the insured person. We have gone through the case-law cited by learned counsel for the appellant, same is not applicable to the facts of this case, therefore, the appellant cannot take the benefit of the same. As the insured person was a serving police Inspector of the Punjab Police, therefore, at the option of the appellant he was not got medically examined before entering into contract of the Life Insurance Policy and further the appellant company has not produced the person who conducted the inquiry after submission of claim under the policy and it has also not been proved that in the proposal form there were some wrong informations given by the insured person. The statement of the Doctor got recorded by the appellant is also not helpful for the appellant. During cross-examination the Doctor has negated the validity of the certificates issued by him. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by this Court has been made out, therefore, we see no force in this appeal, same stands dismissed.
6. Before parting with this judgment, we note that commonly at the time of entering into the contract of any insurance policy the Insurance Companies in order to get the business forego their own formalities and at the time of claim under the policy all the technicalities as well as other objections are raised by the Insurance Company which practice is not appreciable and if any formality with regard to medical examination of the insured person before entering into the policy was foregone by the company now it is the company who has to suffer.
SAK/J-23/L Appeal dismissed.