SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J. -- Briefly stated the facts that Hafiz Din Muhammad father of plaintiff/petitioner got himself insured from Muslim Insurance Company Limited on 25.12.1968 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- vide Policy No. 94176. After completing all the formalities the said insurance policy was despatched to the plaintiff on 6.8.1969. As per agreement the instalment of insurance was to be paid in half yearly instalment. The said Hafiz Din Muhammad died on 9.5.1971. The information regarding his death was communicated to the respondent on 19.5.1971. Thereafter Inquiry Officer made an inquiry on 9.3.1972 and finally vide letter dated 15.4.1972 the respondent accepted the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner. On 22.4.1972 the defendant/respondent demanded a certificate of death of the deceased duly attested by the Magistrate 1st Class so that the payment to be made. However, later on vide letter dated 31.10.1972 the defendant/respondent refused to make the payment of the amount insured. Hence the plaintiff/petitioner was constrained to file a suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The defendant/respohdent controverted the contentions of the plaintiff/petitioner by filing written statement wherein three preliminary objections were raised and stand of the plaintiff/petitioner was 'controverted even on merits.
2. From the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith necessary interest from the defendant as stated in the plaint? OPP.
(2) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from bringing this suit on the ground of her conduct? OPD.
(4) Whether the insured person namely Hafiz Din Muhammad secured the policy through misrepresentation and fraud? If so with what effect? OPD.
(5) Relief.
3. In support of her contentions the plaintiff examined Yar Muhammad PW-1, Dr. M.A. Mueen Siddiqui PW-2, Hakeem Ali Sher PW-3. Thereafter learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner recorded his on statement. In rebuttal the defendant/respondent examined Abdul Hamid Bakhat DW.1, Khuda Bakhsh DW.2, Nazir Ahmad, Assistant Legal Affairs DW.3, Muhammad Shafique DW.4, lrshad Ahmad DW.5, Shujat Ali Abbasi DW.6 and Dr. Faiz Muhammad DW.7.
4. After going through the evidence of the parties the learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.1979. The defendant/respondent felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and filed an appeal which was heard and disposed of by the learned District Judge who accepted the same vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.1982. However, the Appellate Court ordered that the plaintiff/petitioner be reimbursed the amount of instalments received alongwith interest at the rate of 13%.
5. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment and decree the plaintiff /petitioner has filed the instant civil revision. Alongwith this civil revision, Civil Revision No. 205-D/83 has also been filed by the defendant/respondent.
6. AS about the Civil Revisions arise out of the same judgment and decree of the Appellate Court so these are being disposed of by this single judgment.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. The only point which requires determination in these revision petitions is if the Appellate Court was justified in declining the request of the plaintiff/petitioner. While adjudicating the material issue it has been held by the learned Appellate Court that the 'deceased had obtained insurance policy by practising fraud upon the defendant/respondent. To substantiate his contention a reference has been made to the statement of DW.7 Dr. Faiz Muhammad as well as the proposal of insurance Ex.D.3.
9. In the instant case admittedly Hafiz Din Muhammad got himself insured for a sum of Rs. 10;000/- initially with Muslim Insurance Company Limited which was later on succeeded by State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. As per proposal form D.3 and acceptance letter D.5 the said insurance policy was accepted by the respondent. The stand of the. Plaintiff is that at the time or getting him insured, the deceased was not suffering from any disease. To support her contention, the plaintiff has examined PW-2 Dr. M.A. Mueen Siddiqui who claims himself to be a Medical Officer of the Insurance. Corporation. As per his evidence it is clear that the deceased Hafiz Din Muhammad was not suffering from any disease particularly with tuberculosis. To rebut his stand the defendant/respondent has brought on record the statement of Dr. Faiz Muhammad.
Admittedly Dr. Faiz Muhammad DW.7 issued a certificate Ex.D9 dated 14.10.1972 wherein he has stated that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis. The statement of DW.7 Dr. Faiz Muhammad has been recorded after about five years of his issuing certificate Ex.D9, which had also been issued after 1-1/2 year of his examination of the deceased. He has also stated that he did not know the deceased previously and had the occasion to examine him only 2-3 times and that too clinically. He further admits that he had not X-rayed the said patient with reference to tuberculosis or with respect to the determination of his age. Thus under these circumstances no reliance can be placed on such evidence of DW.7. It may also be mentioned here that DW.1 Abdul Hameed Bakhat Investigator has admitted that he had not contacted the Company Medical Officer, Rahimyarkhan, that he had also not consulted the agent through whom the deceased had obtained his policy. Again it has been deposed by DW.2 Khuda Bakhsh that the deceased died at the age of 50/52 years due to heart attack. It is also fact that as per . Letter Ex.P8 dated 22.4.1972 the plaintiff/petitioner was informed that certificate regarding death of the deceased duly attested by the Magistrate Ist Class be despatched to enable the Company to finalize the matter and issue cheque regarding the amount due. It is after the issuance of this letter dated 22.4.1972 that subsequent letter dated 31.10.1972 was issued which gave a cause of grievance to the plaintiff/petitioner to file the instant suit, hence suit is also not barred by limitation.
10. As per evidence discussed, it stands proved that the deceased Muhammad Din was not suffering from any disease at the time of obtaining insurance policy and he died as a result of heart attack. It is also proved that deceased had not committed any fraud with the department/respondent at the time of obtaining his insurance policy. Thus the finding of the Appellate Court on that score are not sustainable. TherefOre, revision petition is accepted, impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored.
11. With the acceptance of this revision petition, the revision petition filed by the respondent (C.R. .No. 205-D of 1983) stand dismissed.