Smt. Protima Borah vs Life Insurance Corporation. Of India And 5 Ors.

Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010015062016

2026:GAU-AS:6815
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2783/2016
SMT. PROTIMA BORAH
W/O LT. KRISHAN KUMAR BORAH, R/O CHEREKAPAR, KHELUA GAON,
P.O. CHEREKAPAR, DIST- SIBASAGAR, ASSAM
1.1: TRIDIV BORAH
S/O. LATE KRISHNA KUMAR BORAH
VILL. CHERAKAPAR
KHELUA GAON
P.O. CHERAKAPAR
DIST. SIVSAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785640.
1.2: SHYAMAL BORAH
S/O. LATE KRISHNA KUMAR BORAH
VILL. CHERAKAPAR
KHELUA GAON
P.O. CHERAKAPAR
DIST. SIVSAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785640.
1.3: KABITA BORAH NATH
W/O. JITENDRA KR. NATH
VILL. JOTOKIA
NATHGAON
P.O. JOTOKIA
P.S. NAZIRA
DIST. SIBSAGAR
ASSAM
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION. OF INDIA and 5 ORS.

Page No.# 2/15
REGD. OFFICE AT -2ND FLOOR, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-21, INDIA,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2:THE ZONAL MANAGER
L.I.C. OF INDIA
EASTERN ZONAL OFFICE
HINDUSTHAN BUILDINGS
4
C.R. AVENUE
KOLKATA-71
WEST BENGAL
3:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
CLAIMS DEPTT.
L.I.C. OF INDIA
JORHAT DIVISIONAL OFFICE
RAJABARI
JORHAT-785014
DIST- JORHAT
ASSAM
4:THE BRANCH MANAGER
L.I.C. OF INDIA
SIVASAGAR BRANCH OFFICE
DR ALAM BUILDING
BABUPATTY
DIST- SIBASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785640
5:A.C. KHOUND
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
L.I.C. OF INDIA
SIBASAGAR BRANCH OFFICE
DR ALAM BUILDING
BABUPATTY
DIST- SIBASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785640
6:ABHIJIT BARUAH
AGENT
L.I.C. OF INDIA
SIBASAGAR BRANCH OFFICE
DR ALAM BUILDING
BABUPATTY
DIST- SIBASAGAR
ASSAM

Page No.# 3/15
PIN-78564
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. P. Borah, Advocate
: Ms. D. D. Roy, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. P. Choudhury, SC, LICI


· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 18.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
·
the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. D. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioners and Mr. S. P. Choudhury, the learned Standing
counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. Taking into account the issue involved, it is the opinion of the
Court that the presence of the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are not
necessary for the adjudication of the present dispute. Accordingly,
the names of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are struck off.
3. The Petitioners herein are the legal representatives of one

Page No.# 4/15
Krishna Kumar Borah (since deceased) and are aggrieved by the
repudiation of the claim in respect to Policy No.444061449 vide the
communication dated 11.03.2015 and under such circumstances,
the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present
writ petition.
4. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant petition are
that on 23.12.2010, the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners,
namely late Krishna Kumar Borah who was serving as an Executive
Engineer (Drilling) in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited,
Sivasagar took a policy of the Life Insurance Corporation of India
(for short ‘LICI’) being Policy No. 444061449. The commencement
of the policy was from 23.12.2010 and the yearly premium to be
paid was Rs.18,425/- which was to be deducted from his salary.
The sum assured of the policy was Rs.20,00,000/-.
5. On 13.02.2013, late Krishna Kumar Borah suffered from a
cardio problem and immediately he was admitted to the Srimanta
Sankardeva Hospital and Research Institute, Dibrugarh. He expired
on 14.02.2013 on account of cardiorespiratory failure.
6. The wife of late Krishna Kumar Borah submitted the claim
forms before the Life Insurance Corporation of India as nominee

Page No.# 5/15
claiming the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- which was the assured
sum. The said claim was rejected vide the communication dated
11.03.2015 by the LICI on the ground that the LICI had evidence
and reasons to believe that late Krishna Kumar Borah was suffering
from hypertension and for which he had taken EOL and HPL prior
to the date of commencement of the policy and the said aspect
was not disclosed at the time when the policy form was submitted.
It was also alleged that late Krishna Kumar Borah had induced the
LICI to issue the policy on a false statement made by him in the
Proposal Statement of the health and had he disclosed the correct
information, the LICI of India would not have accepted the
proposal. It is on this ground the claims of the Petitioners were
rejected.
7. The wife of late Krishna Kumar Borah thereupon issued a legal
notice on 11.06.2015. But as there was no step taken for redressal,
the wife of late Krishna Kumar Borah filed the present writ petition
in the year 2016. In the meantime, the wife of late Krishna Kumar
Borah expired and the Petitioner Nos. 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 have been
substituted.
8. Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, Respondent Nos. 1
to 4 filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein there is no denial of

Page No.# 6/15
the fact that the policy had been taken by Late Krishna Kumar
Borah with effect from 23.12.2010 for a sum assured of
Rs.20,00,000/-, and that the wife of Late Krishna Kumar Borah was
the nominee under the said policy. At Paragraph No.7 of the said
affidavit-in-opposition, further details have been provided as to
why the claim in respect to the Policy No. 444061449 was
repudiated. It was mentioned that in Question No. 11 of the
proposal statement, various questions were put and all these
questions were answered by late Krishna Kumar Borah in the
negative. It was also mentioned that upon the claim application
being submitted and a review being conducted, it was found that
the cause of death was CVA (Acute left cerebral hemorrhage with
intraventricular extension with subdual collection). It was also
found upon enquiry being made with the ONGC Limited that late
Krishna Kumar Borah, prior to submitting the proposal statement,
availed EOL and HPL on different dates many times for the period
from 11.11.2010 to 30.11.2010 for self-illness. It was also found
from the certificate issued by the ONGC Limited that on 11.11.2010
while drilling well GHGJ, a fatal accident occurred on Rig-E-2000-5
and it greatly affected late Krishna Kumar Borah and he went into
shock and to recover from shock, he took HPL from 11.11.2010 to
30.11.2010. It was mentioned that in the certificate which was
issued by the ONGC, late Krishna Kumar Borah did not receive any

Page No.# 7/15
physical injury and only affected by the tragic condition of his
colleague. Further to that, it was mentioned that as per the history
sheet of Srimanta Sankdardeva Hospital dated 13.02.2013, it
revealed that late Krishna Kumar Borah was a known patient of
HTN not on medication and he was admitted in the hospital on
13.02.2013 and he was referred by Neurosurgeon with a h/o fall
from bed 4 days back in drunken state.
9. The records reveal that in pursuance to the said affidavit-in-
opposition so filed, an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Petitioners
wherein it was categorically mentioned that the allegation of the
Respondents that the father of the Petitioners suppressed material
fact regarding his suffering from hypertension is totally baseless
and vague allegation. The father of the Petitioners was not
suffering from hypertension at the time of purchasing the policy in
question. The father of the Petitioners though availed EOL and
HPL, however, the same was not availed by the father of the
Petitioners due to suffering from hypertension or any serious
ailment. It was also mentioned that there was nothing on record to
show that the father of the Petitioners was suffering from
hypertension at the time of purchasing the insurance policy in
question. The father of the Petitioners therefore had not
suppressed any material fact in the proposal statement and as

Page No.# 8/15
such, availing EOL and HPL did not have any correlation with the
death of the father of the Petitioners.
10. In addition to that, it was mentioned that there was nothing
on medical record that the father of the Petitioners had suffered
from any serious disease or illness prior to the commencement of
the policy in question. Merely because the father of the Petitioners
did not disclose in the proposal form some minor ailments of trivial
nature suffered by him temporarily on some occasions, which had
no material bearing on the risk undertaken by the LICI or even any
remote nexus with the ultimate cause of the death, the same
cannot be construed as the fraudulent suppression of material facts
so as to permit the LICI to repudiate its liabilities under the
contract of insurance.
11. Mr. D. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners has laid emphasis on the judgment of the learned
Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Anupama
Behera and Others Vs. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Cuttack
and Another reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Ori 16 and specifically
referred to paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment.
12. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf
of the parties and perused the materials on record.

Page No.# 9/15
13. The materials on records show that the policy commenced
from 23.12.2010 as it is the admitted stand of the Respondent
LICI. Late Krishna Kumar Borah who was the insured expired on
14.02.2013. The stand so taken by the Respondents for
repudiating the claim in respect to the Policy No.444061449 is on
account of certain incorrect statements being made in the proposal
statement form and more particularly in respect to Question No.11.
This aspect could be seen not only from Paragraph No.7 of the
affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 but also
from the repudiation letter dated 11.03.2015. The questions which
formed the basis for the repudiation were:
Q.No.11 ANSWERED AS
i) During the last 5 years did you consult a Medical
NO
Practitioner for any ailment requiring treatment for more than
a week?
ii) Have you ever been admitted to any Hospital or nursing
NO
home for general check up, observation, treatment or
operation?
iii) Have you remain absent from place of work on ground of
NO
health during the last 5 years?
iv) Are you suffering from or have you ever suffered from
NO
ailment pertaining to Liver, Stomach, Heart, Lungs, Kidney,
Brain or Nervous System?

Page No.# 10/15
v) Are you suffering from or have you ever suffered from
NO
Diabetes, Tuberculosis, High Blood Pressure, Cancer, Epilepsy,
Hernia, Leprosy or any other disease?
vi) Do you have any bodily defect or deformity? NO
vii) What have been you usual state of health. GOOD
14. At the relevant time, when the policy was holding the field and
further, at the time when the claim for the policy was made,
Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 read as follows:
45. Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two
“
years.—No policy of life insurance effected before the commencement of this
Act shall after the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of this
Act and no policy of life insurance effected after the coming into force of this
Act shall after the expiry of two years from the date on which it was effected,
be called in question by an insurer on the ground that a statement made in the
proposal for insurance or in any report of a medical officer, or referee, or friend
of the insured, or in any other document leading to the issue of the policy, was
inaccurate or false, unless the insurer shows that such statement was on a
material matter or suppressed facts which it was material to disclose and that
it was fraudulently made by the policy-holder and that the policy-holder knew
at the time of making it that the statement was false or that it suppressed
facts which it was material to disclose:
Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the insurer from calling for
proof of age at any time if he is entitled to do so, and no policy shall be
deemed to be called in question merely because the terms of the policy are
adjusted on subsequent proof that the age of the life insured was incorrectly
stated in the proposal.”

Page No.# 11/15
15. It may be relevant to take note of that the above quoted
Section 45 was substituted by the present Section 45 w.e.f.
26.12.2014. From a perusal of the above quoted provisions, it
would be seen that no policy of life insurance effected after the
coming into force of the Insurance Act, 1938, shall after the expiry
of 2 years from the date on which it was effected, be called in
question by an insurer on the ground of a statement made in the
proposal for insurance, or in any report of the medical officer, or
referee, or friend of the insured, or in any other document leading
to the issuance of the policy was incorrect, inaccurate, or false.
However, there is an exception. The exception being that if the
insurer shows that such statement was made on a material matter
or suppressed facts which it was material to disclose and it was
fraudulently made by the policy-holder and that the policy-holder
knew at the time of making it that the statement was false, or that
it suppressed facts which was material to disclose.
16. Applying the said provision to the present dispute, it would be
seen that as the policy in question was issued on 23.12.2010 and
the insured i.e. late Krishna Kumar Borah, expired on 14.02.2013
i.e. after 2 years, 1 month, 21 days, the insurer, i.e. the LICI,
cannot question a statement made in the proposal for insurance
unless the LICI shows that such statement was made on a material

Page No.# 12/15
matter or suppressed fact which it was material to disclose and it
was fraudulently made by the policy-holder and the policy-holder
knew at the time of making it that the statement was false or that
it suppressed fact which it was material to disclose.
17. In the previous segments of the present judgment, this Court
has already quoted the relevant questions which formed the basis
of the repudiation. These statements made by Late Krishna Kumar
Borah in the proposal form were made more than 2 years from the
date of his death. Under such circumstances, it is the responsibility
of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to establish that such statements
were on a material matter or suppressed fact which it was material
to disclose and it was fraudulently made by the policy-holder and
the policy-holder knew at the time of making the statement was
false or that it suppressed facts which it was material to disclose.
18. In the backdrop of the above, let's see what the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 have found in the inquiry. From a perusal of Paragraph
No.7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1
to 4, it would show that late Krishna Kumar Borah had taken EOL
and HPL from 11.11.2010 to 30.11.2010. The further inquiries so
made on the basis of a certificate issued by the ONGC Limited
dated 10.04.2014 disclosed that late Krishna Kumar Borah was
shocked on account of the accident which took place on

Page No.# 13/15
11.11.2010, which fatally injured his colleague. It also reveals that
late Krishna Kumar Borah did not receive any physical injury but
was only affected by tragic condition of his colleague. This material
so placed before this Court, in the opinion of this Court would not
show that there was a non-disclosure by late Krishna Kumar Borah
at the time of taking of the policy of a material matter or that late
Krishna Kumar Borah had suppressed facts which was material to
disclose.
19. This Court at this stage finds it very relevant to take note of
the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Orissa High

Court in the case of Anupama Behera (supra) wherein the learned
Division Bench of the Orissa High Court had dealt with what would
constitute material facts for the purpose of non-disclosure.
Paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment being relevant are
reproduced herein under:
“ 15. The legal position which emerges from the aforementioned judicial
pronouncements is that the test to determine materiality is whether the
fact not disclosed has any bearing on the risk undertaken by the insurer.
If the fact has any bearing on the risk, it is a material fact. If the insured
failed to disclose in the proposal form trivial ailments suffered by him
temporarily on some occasions, the same cannot be construed as
fraudulent suppression of material facts, so as to repudiate the contract
of insurance.

Page No.# 14/15
16. The Insurance policy, apart from its special feature, is a contract
between a person seeking to be insured and the insurer. In interpreting
the terms of contract of insurance, they should receive fair, reasonable
and sensible construction in the consonance with the purpose of the
contract as intended by the parties. Emphasis in such cases is laid more
upon a practical and reasonable, rather than, on a literal and strained
construction. In interpreting the contract of insurance neither the
coverage under a policy should be unnecessarily broadened, nor should
the policy be rendered ineffective inconsequence of unnatural or
unreasonable construction. An attempt should be to construe a contract
in liberal manner so as to accomplish the purpose or the object for
which it is made. In the absence of ambiguity, neither party can be
favoured but where the construction is doubtful, the Courts lean
strongly against the party who prepared the contract. Where there is a
susceptibility of two interpretations, the one favourable to the insured is
to be preferred.”
20. This Court from the materials on record is of the opinion that
not only the LICI have failed to show that there was any fraud
committed by late Krishna Kumar Borah in not disclosing a material
fact or late Krishna Kumar Borah had suppressed the material fact
but also the answers made in the proposal statement do not
appear to be incorrect. The said opinion is based on the fact that
late Krishna Kumar Borah expired on account of cardiorespiratory
failure and the reason being essential hypertension. There is
nothing on record which would show that late Krishna Kumar
Borah had hypertension at the time when the policy was taken.

Page No.# 15/15
There is also no report placed before this Court to show that on
account of hypertension which existed for at least more than 2
years 1 month 21 days, the same was the cause of death.
21. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court
that the repudiation so made by the LICI vide the communication
dated 11.03.2015 is arbitrary, illegal as well as unreasonable and
therefore calls for interference.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition therefore stands disposed of with
the following observations and directions.
(i) The communication dated 11.03.2015 thereby repudiating the
claim in respect to Policy No.444061449 stands set aside and
quashed.
(ii) The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed
to take appropriate steps for release of the assured sum to
the Petitioners at the earliest and preferably within 3 (three)
months from the date of the instant judgment.
(iii) No costs.

Digitally signed by
Bijoy Saha
Date: 2026.05.23
13:55:39 +05'30'
Bijoy Saha
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant