1987 PLP 2430 (MLD)

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.