1 CGHC010218432026 2026:CGHC:35468-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 686 of 2026 1 - Smt. Apsara Qureshi W/o Mohd. Alim Qureshi Aged About 42 Years R/o H-9, Sector-1, Awanti Vihar, Police Station- Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur Ahmed Hussain (Died) Through Legal Heir As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 27-11-2024. ... Appellant Versus 1 - General Manager/chief Executive Officer (C. E. O.) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune Maharashtra- 411006. Represented Through Authorised Representative Mr Balram Kumar Patwa, S/o Dudheshwar Prasad, Aged About 28 Years, Posted As Zonal Manager Legal And Compliance Of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited Branch Office At Rama Magneto Mall Office No. 414, 4th Floor, Srikant Verma Marg, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 2 - Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Subhash Chandra Chowk, Kumhar Para, Kewaramunda Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh- 494001. Represented Through Authorized Representative Mr. Balram Kumar Patwa, S/o Dudheshwar Prasad, Aged About 28 Years, Posted As Zonal Manager Legal And Compliance Of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited Branch Office At Rama Magneto Mall Office No. 414, 4th Floor, Srikant Verma Marg, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495001 ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Shri Shantam Awasthy, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Ravi Bhagat, Advocate. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.13 14:34:16 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 12.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant (respondent in the writ petition) against the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.4259 of 2019, whereby the petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed and the order dated 29.09.20218 passed in case No.83/2014 by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Jagdalpur, District Bastar (in short, PLA) directing the respondents-insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.4,16,226/- with interest @ 8% from 13.12.2013 till recovery in favour of appellant herein, was set aside. 2 The writ petition was filed against original respondent namely Ahmed Hussain who was the applicant before the PLA. During pendency of writ petition Ahmed Hussain passed away and his legal representative i.e. appellant herein was substituted. 3 Facts of the case are that, late Smt. Ayesha Hussain, wife of deceased respondent Ahmed Hussain was issued Insurance Policy No. 0187786346 by the respondents-insurance company. She paid a pre- mium of Rs.50,000/- and Ahmed Hussain was named as nominee. Smt. Ayesha Hussain died on 26.03.2012 at Maharani Hospital, Jag- dalpur. After her death, the appellant submitted the necessary docu- ments to claim the insurance amount. The appellant alleged that he was entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- under the policy but only Rs.83,774/- was credited to his bank account, therefore he claimed the balance insur- 3 ance amount; Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- to- wards expenses. The insurance company contested the claim alleging that Smt. Ayesha Hussain was suffering from Carcinoma Ovary (can- cer) before issuance of policy itself and she had deliberately sup- pressed this material fact in the proposal form, particularly in Column 14. The PLA framed issues regarding entitlement to insurance amount with interest; compensation for mental agony and expenses and assis- tance/litigation expenses and after considering the evidence, ordered to pay an amount of Rs.4,16,226/- along with interest @ 8 percent from 13.12.2013 till its actual recovery in favour of insured. 4 Against the said order of PLA, the Insurance company preferred WPC No.4259 of 2019 which was allowed and order granting payment of said amount in favour of appellant herein has been set aside by learned Single Judge. Hence this writ appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant supporting the award passed by the PLA would submit that Smt. Ayesha Hussain was ap- proximately 54–55 years old. When the policy was issued, the insur- ance company ought to have conducted a medical examination before issuing the policy. It was submitted that she was not suffering from any serious or life-threatening disease at the time of obtaining the policy and that the disease was discovered only after taking the insurance policy. The appellant denied suppression of any material facts in the proposal form. It was further argued that burden was upon the respon- dents-insurance company to establish alleged suppression by cogent and reliable evidence, but they failed to discharge that burden before the PLA. The PLA, after appreciating the evidence on record has rightly 4 concluded that there was no suppression of any material fact and con- sequently awarded the insurance amount in favour of appellant-insured which was erroneously set aside by the learned Single Judge which needs interference by the appellate court. 6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-insurance company argued that Smt. Ayesha Hussain was suffering from Carci- noma Ovary before the insurance policy was issued in her favour. She deliberately suppressed this material and serious medical condition in Column 14 of the Proposal Form. Such suppression amounted to con- cealment of a material fact and entitled the insurance company to re- ject the claim. The findings and award passed by the PLA in favour of appellant-claimant were unsustainable and it was rightly set aside by learned Single Judge which needs no interference. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the docu- ments annexed with the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 8 The life insurance policy in the case in hand was issued by the respondents-insurance company on the basis of a Proposal Form filled up by the deceased Ayesha Hussain on 20.10.2016. Certain questionnaire is made in the Proposal Form in respect of health condition of the insured. One such query mentioned in the said Form reads "Any cancer, tumor, cyst or any other unusual growth", to which the insured put a tick mark in box as “NO”. It appears that claim of the appellant was disowned by the respondents as the insured was suffering from Carcinoma Ovary (a type of Cancer) a terminal disease before purchase of insurance policy. The appellant suppressed this material fact while filling the Proposal Form and obtained the policy by 5 playing fraud suppressing the material fact of her being suffering from Ovary Cancer. 9 The main question arises for consideration is whether the insurance policy was obtained by the insured by suppressing the material fact with regard to her health. 10 The respondent-insurance company examined two witnesses namely Ratendra Dixt (NAW-1) and Dr. Yusuf Memon (NAW-2). In sum and substance NAW-1 Ratendra Dixit have deposed that the insured was suffering from Carcinoma Ovary before purchase of insurance policy. Dr. Yusuf Memon (NAW-2) deposed in his statement that insured came to his hospital for treatment on 31.05.2011 with a referral letter of TATA Memorial Hospital, Bombay. He further states that two chemotherapy cycle was done in his hospital whereas one chemotherapy cycle of insured was done at TATA Memorial Hospital itself as per the referral letter. As per discharge summary, the insured underwent operation in February, 2010 and after that three cycles of chemotherapy was done at Ram Krishna Hospital, Raipur, Thus, it is proved that before taking the policy on 21.10.2010, the insured was suffering from Cancer. Though her husband denied this fact of Cancer, but he admits that insured had Tumor. This admission is self sufficient that insured was a patient of Caner and already underwent operation and Chemotherapy of different cycles before taking insurance policy. 11 Thus, from the aforesaid factual aspects, it is clear that the insured underwent Cancer Operation in February, 2010 whereas the Proposal Form was filled up on 20.10.2010 and policy was issued on 21.10.2010 and the insured died on 26.03.2012, meaning thereby, the insured was 6 already suffering from Ovary Cancer and underwent operation before obtaining the insurance policy and this fact was intentionally suppressed by her, much less supported from the evidence of NAW-1, Ratendra Dixit, NAW-2, Dr. Yusuf Memon, Discharge summery, Referral Letter of TATA Memorial Hospital, Bombay as also from different cycles of chemotherapy done. All these facts were rightly appreciated by learned Single Judge while allowing the petition filed the respondents-insurance company and dismissing the award dated 29.09.2018 passed by the PLA, in which, we do not see and good ground to interfere as relying upon various judgments of Supreme Court, the Single Judge has adequately discussed that contract of insurance is one of the utmost good faith and a person who seeks to obtain policy of life insurance is duty bound to disclose all material facts bearing upon the issue as to whether the insurer would consider it appropriate to assume the risk which is proposed, in which, the appellant herein-insured utterly failed and concealed the material fact of her being Cancer patient. 12 Thus, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed upholding the order passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.4259 of 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder