2006 PLP 1186 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Petitioner's husband Muhammad Tufail purchased a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.507575161-0 for an amount of Rs.75,000 for a term of 20 years against yearly premium of Rs.4,965 commencing from 1-12-2000. Petitioner was nominated as nominee being wife of the policy holder. The policy remained in force till death of Muhammad Tufail, who died on 28-9-2004. Petitioner, thereafter, filed a death claim with respondent No.2 who repudiated the same through impugned order dated 15-2-2005, which has been prayed to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence through instant constitutional petition on the ground that under section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, policy having not been questioned within a period of two years, could not be repudiated after death of the insurer, which occurred after four years of the commencement of the policy. Reliance in support of claim was placed on the judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Mst. Begum Jan (PLD 1983 SC 421) and by this Court in the case of State Life Insurance Corporation v. Mamoor Khan (1993 CLC 790).

2. Relief in petition was defended by the learned counsel for the respondents besides the reasons detailed in written reply on the ground that policy in question was non-medical proposal but insurer concealed his chronic disease which resulted in his death in Sheikh Zayad Hospital, Lahore, as is evident from his Bed Head Notes maintained by the hospital. It was also emphasized that respondent No.2 correctly repudiated the claim because deceased did not declare his ailment at the time of purchase of policy. According to him, the concealment committed, amounted to fraud/cheating for which no period of limitation can be fixed, even the one provided by section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 or section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

3. I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Respondent No.2 through his order dated 15-2-2005 repudiated the claim of the petitioner which is a printed/cyclostyled order wherein he only filled name of the petitioner, policy number and name of the deceased along with his relationship. Respondent No.2 did not give any independent reason for his repudiation. In this manner, the impugned order dated 15-2-2005 is not only sketchy but is also unreasoned despite specific provisions of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which made obligatory for respondent No.2 to substantiate his conclusions with the reasons. Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 2268) mandated that unreasoned orders in violation of section 24 of the Act (ibid) are not sustainable at law, even if by officials discharging administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial functions.

4. Impugned order also revealed that the same was passed/issued through post, at the back of the petitioner and she was not afforded any opportunity of hearing earlier to taking decision of repudiation. Respondent No.2 was bound under law to issue a notice of providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as the controversy about issuance of notice is firmly settled by this time to the effect that provision of notice has to be read in each statute even if not specifically provided. Decision taken/ order passed by respondent No.2, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is also violative of principles of natural justice.

5. Provisions of section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and those of section 45 of Insurance Act, 1938, conferred a right on insurer to dispute the policy purchased by customer only within two years from , the date of its commencement, even on the ground that policy holder suppressed some facts. Tentatively, respondents could not produce any proof of ailment of the deceased within the period of two years from the purchase of policy and reliance on Bed Head Notes of Sheikh Zayed Hospital, being for the period of September, 2004, were of no much help to the opposition rendered by the respondents because this period falls beyond two years' time from purchase of policy dated 1-12-2000. I have intentionally avoided to give any positive findings on this aspect of the matter, as I intend to remit the matter to respondent No.2 to pass a fresh reasoned order, after hearing the petitioner, by taking care of her claim on the basis of documents brought before him.

6. For the reasons noted above, order dated 15-2-2005 passed by respondent No.2 is not sustainable at law and being sketchy is liable to be declared as prayed. This petition is accordingly accepted and order dated 15-2-2005 is declared to be void and non-existent in the eye of law, with the result that claim of the petitioner will be deemed to be pending with respondent No.2, who will decide it afresh in the light of observations made above. There will be no order as to costs. F.B./I-127/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.