1980 PLP 1953 (CLC)

S. 45-Life Insurance Policy-Proposals accepted after due check up by Medical Adviser of Insurance Company--Issue of whether insured suffering from cancer and such fact deliberately suppressed not, taken by filing written statement in tune-.-Insurance Company, held, cannot contest on such score. Shivraman G. Mohatta v. Messrs Mohammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. ; P L D 19035 S C 669 ; Jan Muhammad v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor P L D 1966 S C 461 and Muhammad Haleem v. N. H. Muhammad Naim P L D 1969 S C 270 ref. . (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- -- O. X1.1, r. 5 read with S, 151-Suit of respondent decreed by Single Judge on failure of appellants to file written statement within tithe in site of several adjournments being allowed-Single Judge, held, at liberty either to pronounce judgment against appellants or to make such orders in relation to suit as found to be fit-Discretion exercis ed by Single Judge, held, eminently proper. Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Appellants. AGHA ALI HYDER, C. J.-The respondent had filed a suit in forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 1,17,000, which was the amount of life insurance policy, which had become mature on the death of her husband, who had been insured by the appellants. For a period of six months, no written statement came to be filed, in spite of various adjournments sought, with the result, that the appellants were debarred by the Additional Registrar from filing the written statement,, and the case was ordered to be fixed before Court. In this very context, it might be mentioned that, even before the learned Single Judge, no good cause was even attempted to be shown for not filing the written statement within the time allowed. The learned Single Judge, because of the failure of the defendant to file the written statement. decreed the suit. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the appellants should not suffer, because of the non-filing of the written statement, and also cited Shivrattan G. Mohatta v. Messrs Mohammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. (P L D 1965 S C 669), Jan Muhammad v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor (P L D 1966 S C 461) and Muhammad Haleen v. H. H. Muhammad Naim (P L D 1969 S C 270) in support of the contention. He had also filed a written statement, along with the memorandum of appeal which. inter alia, contained an allegation that the deceased at the time of the submission of the proposal, was suffering from cancer a fact which was deliberately suppressed and concealed from the appellant. It is common knowledge, and it is not denied that proposals are accepted after due check up by the Medical Adviser of Insurance Companies. It was the latter's responsibility to have a proper examination, and advise the appellants properly into the matter. Obviously, nothing wrong was found, and the proposal went through, It does not, therefore, now lie in the mouth of the appellants to raise any contest on that score, and, if they were so minded, issues could be taken up by filing the written statement in time. As to who was responsible for non-filing of the written statement, in spite of the accommodation granted, we need not go into the same. It was open to the learned Single Judge either to pronounce judgment against the appellants, or to make such orders in relation to the suit its found to be fit. To our mind, the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge was eminently proper. The appellants owed it to the respondent in all fairness to pay up the claim on their own, and in good time. The respondent, who is a widow, and apparently in straitened circumstances, has awaited for all these years. We will, therefore, dismiss the appeal to limine. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.