A case law based on section 45 of Insurance act 1938. It deals with when the insurer can break your insurance policy. Its a very famous and lanmark act

1. Smt. Shanti Devi
w/o Late Rajendra
v.
Office Of Insurance Ombudsman
Air 2008 All 72
Judgement by :-
Justice Amitava Lala
Justice J.

2. Facts of the case
• On 31st January, 2002 - Petitioners deceased husband made a policy under the
money back scheme of LIC.
• On 2 8th December, 2002 - Policy lapsed due to nonpayment of premium.
• On 15th February, 2003 - Policy was revived on full payment of premium.
• On 16th February, 2003 - Insured expired due to heart attack.
• On 27th May, 2004 - Senior Divisional Manager of LIC Allahabad rejected the
claim of his wife on account of her husband’s death.
• On 18th January 2005 – Zonal Manager of LIC from Kanpur had also rejected the
claim and had formally informed the same to the wife of deceased. An appeal was
then preferred before the Insurance Ombudsman.
• On 30th June 2005 – Insurance Ombudsman upheld the repudiation action by
insurer, in repudiating the claim under the policy.

3. Issues :-
• Whether the repudiation order by the Life
Insurance Company is justified ?
• Whether the facts of the case is related with
Section 45 of Insurance Act 1938 ?
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the
claim from the policy ?

4. Arguments by Petitioner
• Before the date of death the deceased attended his office to
work. He was not under treatment for any disease to be
treated by any Doctor. However, as per the certificate given by
the particular hospital, the deceased was suffering from
jaundice.
• A person having jaundice normally can not attend his office to
do the work just before one day of his death. Death occurred
by heart attack. No specific denial is available whether the
deceased was medically treated any where before his death.

5. Arguments by Respondent
The second part of Section 45 of Insurance Act 1938 applies to the current situation i.e.
a) the statement must be on a material matter or must suppress facts which it was material to
disclose.
b) the suppression must be fraudulently made by the policy-holder
c) (c) the policy-holder must have known at the time of making the statement that it was false
or that it suppressed facts which it was material to disclose.

6. Judgement
It is hold that the petitioner is entitled for the said sum which will be
released by the Insurance Company in favour of the petitioner as early as
possible but not beyond the period of one month from the date of
communication of this order.

7.  Thank You 
PRESENTATION BY:- SOUMYA SUBHANKAR