Anyway, to seek benefit of Section 79, the onus probandi rested upon the insurer to prove that either the insured failed to comply with duty of disclosure or made a fraudulent misrepresentation before the contract was finalized.

 After having medically probed, Syed Iqbal Hussain Rizvi (insured) just aged 46 years declared fit person & issued him life insurance policy on 29th July, 1998, who died on 01st September, 1999, thus his widow/respondent preferred claim before insurer about three months thereafter, but repudiated on 18th September, 2000 while concluding that the proposal form was based on fraud & misrepresentation. Anyway, to seek benefit of Section 79, the onus probandi rested upon the insurer to prove that either the insured failed to comply with duty of disclosure or made a fraudulent misrepresentation before the contract was finalized. The insured breathed his last naturally in quite prime age of 47 due to heart failure, which cannot be claimed to have been managed/planned in suspicious manner just to obtain the policy amount of meager quantum. Thereafter, act of repudiation beyond the specified limitation was not only illegal, rather deficient to any justification/evidence, thus could not be perpetuated. The judicial system is aimed to promote justice and when it is proved on record that the repudiation was not justified on law as well as merit, then to me in such like situation the principle of recurring cause of action fully applies, thus whenever a demand for disbursement of claim is denied, fresh cause of action accrues to the claimant to approach the Court within three years of last denial, because an illegal, without jurisdiction, unfounded & based on mala fide act has no pedestal to be perpetuated even behind the shield of limitation. The delay in bona fide approach to the wrong forum(s) was condoned. Now comes another moot point, whether the respondent could present the earlier application returned by the then Insurance Tribunal or institute new one after formation of regular suit. It was held that institution of new suit was perfect as per law already settled and learned lower Court was justified in answering issue No.3 against the insurer. The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.2,00,000/- to be additionally paid to the respondent

(R.F.A) (Final Decree): 3953/20
State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan etc Vs Mst Syed Muzhara Fatima
27-01-2021
2021 LHC 635