LPA-1852-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1852-2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 10.07.2026 Pronounced on: 23.07.2026 Uploaded on: 24.07.2026 Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Limited and another ..... Appellants VERSUS Kalawati and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for the appellants Through video conferencing. ***** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. 1 This appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent impugning judgment dated 19.05.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby a writ petition filed by the appellants-insurance company, assailing award dated 02.04.2025, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), Public Utility Services, Kurukshetra, has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, Samundar Singh, spouse of claimant-respondent No.1, purchased a life insurance policy from the appellants on 31.03.2018 with a sum assured of Rs.7,11,322/- and death benefit of Rs.14,22,644/-. He paid the initial premium but within 25 days of the commencement of the RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1852-2026 (O&M) 2 policy, i.e. on 25.04.2018, he expired due to a heart attack. Claim raised by respondent No.1 was reputed by the appellants on 31.03.2019 on the ground that the insured gave wrong answers to the questions posed in the proposal form pertaining to his health and that he suppressed a pre-existing disease. Respondent No.1 filed an application before PLA under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short the ‘Act of 1987’), which was allowed by award dated 02.04.2025. Writ petition filed by the appellants assailing it has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment impugned herein. 3. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the contract of insurance operates on the principle of uberrimae fidei, (utmost good faith) and as the deceased-insured had suppressed material information regarding a pre-existing disease, claim has been rightly repudiated. It has been asserted that the proximity of death to the initiation of the policy created a doubt and the claim was investigated. An investigation report, Exhibit R6, accompanied by scanned photocopy of medical record, Exhibit R5, from PGIMS Rohtak, indicate that the deceased was suffering from squamous cell carcinoma and had undergone treatment, but, did not disclose it at the time of purchase of the insurance policy. It has been urged that the PLA as well as the learned Single Judge have erred in not appreciating these vital documents and in accepting the claim raised by respondent No.1. 4. We have heard counsel for the appellants and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by him besides examining the documents appended with the present appeal. RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1852-2026 (O&M) 3 5. It is the settled legal position that a contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith and it is the bounden duty of the person purchasing the insurance policy to disclose all the relevant facts to the insurer. Simultaneously, it is also the duty of the insurance company to get the life insured medically examined from one of their empanelled doctors. The examining doctor has to give a report regarding the medical condition of the insured as well as certify that he does not suffer from any ailment. 6. Respondent No.1 has specifically averred in the application under Section 22-C of the Act of 1987 that policy had been purchased after insured was medically examined and blood, urine and all other laboratory tests were conducted by an empanelled doctor, which were found to be normal. In response, insurer has admitted that the insured was medically examined though a stand has been taken that routine tests were conducted and the insurance company had refrained from conducting any other tests. It has been stated that the policy was issued relying solely on the information contained in the proposal form. Insured was more than 55 years of age. It was the prudent duty of the insurer to conduct a thorough medical examination to assess risk. Once the insurer has clinically screened the applicant, it cannot turn around and say that the insured had a pre-existing disease. There is nothing on the record to show that the insurer has taken any action against the medical practitioner who examined the insured. In order to cover its lapse and to protect the empanelled doctor, the insurance company has shifted the entire onus upon the insured, which cannot be permitted. RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1852-2026 (O&M) 4 7. In Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar and others Vs. LIC, (2021) 13 SCC 561, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the alleged concealment has to be of such a nature that it disentitles the deceased from getting his life insured. The pre-existing ailment has to have a direct nexus with the cause of death. As per the case set up by the insurance company, insured allegedly concealed that he underwent treatment for cancer. As per the investigation conducted by them, deceased died due to heart attack. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any link between the alleged suppressed pre-existing disease with the reason for the death of the insured. 8. Insured has relied upon an investigation report, which is undated and unsigned. They have also produced a xerox scanned copy of the medical record of the deceased from PGIMS, Rohtak. Although strict rules of evidence are not applicable before the PLA, but insurer was required to produce the doctor or some other official from the hospital to show that the insured-deceased had undergone treatment for the alleged disease. The documents relied upon by the insurance company are uncorroborated and unauthenticated. No reliance can be placed upon them. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason or ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Finding no legal infirmity, procedural irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment, we find that the present appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed, though with no order as to cost. RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1852-2026 (O&M) 5 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Ramandeep Singh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes RAMANDEEP SINGH 2026.07.24 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document