{"id":39481,"date":"2010-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-17T19:48:13","modified_gmt":"2016-04-17T14:18:13","slug":"life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/832\/2000\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 832 of 2000\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 12 of 2000\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n \n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nLIFE\nINSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Appellant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nHANSABEN\nCHANDRAKANT SHETH & 1 - Respondents\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nHM BHAGAT for Appellant: \nMR NIRAV C THAKKAR for Respondent:\n1, \nRULE SERVED for Respondent:\n2, \n================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/11\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpresent appeal arise against the judgment & order dated 7\/2\/2000
\n\tpassed by learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 12
\n\tof 2000, whereby the judgment & decree of the Civil Court in
\n\tSpecial Civil Suit No. 30 of 1997 for directing Life Insurance
\n\tCorporation (hereinafter referred to as  LIC  for convenience)
\n\tto pay amount of insurance of Rs.1,00,000\/- with interest  was
\n\tconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\trelevant facts appear to be that the policy of Kalpesh Chandrakant
\n\tSheth (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased\/insured’) was got
\n\tinsured by his father Chandrakant Dalichand Sheth for a sum of
\n\tRs.1,00,000\/-. The declaration was filed at the relevant point of
\n\ttime and the insured was also examined by the panel doctor of LIC,
\n\twho recommended for the proposal. The policy appears to have been
\n\ttaken on 25\/1\/1993, and it continued for a period exceeding two
\n\tyears. It appears that, insured expired on 15\/10\/1995, and
\n\tthereafter the claim was submitted on account of death of the
\n\tinsured. The claim came to be repudiated by LIC by contending that
\n\tthe disease of kidney was not disclosed at the time when policy was
\n\ttaken, and therefore, the claim was not honoured. Parents of
\n\tdeceased insured filed civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 30 of
\n\t1997 in the Civil Court for recovery of amount of Rs.1,00,000\/- from
\n\tthe defendant LIC. Ultimately at the end of the trial, learned Civil
\n\tJudge passed the judgment & decree on 21\/9\/1999 directing the
\n\tLIC to pay amount of Rs.1,00,000\/- with the interest at the rate of
\n\t12% per annum from the due date, till realisation of the amount.
\n\tBeing aggrieved by the said judgment & decree of the Civil
\n\tCourt, the appeal came to be preferred before this Court being First
\n\tAppeal No. 12 of 2000. Learned Single Judge having found no
\n\tinfirmity in the findings arrived at by the trial court  did not
\n\tinterfere with the judgment & decree of the trial court, and
\n\tconsequently  dismissed the appeal. It is under these circumstances
\n\tpresent appeal before us.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave considered the judgment & decree passed by learned trial
\n\tJudge, and also the judgment & order passed by learned Single
\n\tJudge in First Appeal, as well as the record & proceedings which
\n\twas called for from the trial court. We have heard Mr. Amit P.
\n\tPatel, learned counsel for Mr. H.M. Bhagat for the appellant\/
\n\toriginal appellant-defendant and Mr. Nirav Thakkar, learned counsel
\n\tfor the respondents\/original respondents-plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel for the appellant first contended that there was clear
\n\tsuppression of material  fact, in as much as, prior to the death the
\n\tinsured had got his treatment before the Kidney Hospital at Nadiad
\n\tand at that time in the history column it was declared that he had
\n\tkidney problem 5 years back, i.e. prior to the issuance of policy
\n\tand he submitted that said aspect was required to be disclosed
\n\tbefore the panel doctor, which was not disclosed and therefore, it
\n\tcan be said to be suppression of material fact, and on the basis of
\n\twhich LIC was justified in repudiating the contract. He submitted
\n\tthat said aspect has neither been properly appreciated by the Civil
\n\tCourt nor thereafter by learned Single Judge of this Court, hence
\n\tthe appeal be allowed only on that ground.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\texamination of the aforesaid contention and upon close scrutiny, it
\n\tappears that the question wherein disclosure was required to be made
\n\twas as to whether the insured had any kidney disease and the answer
\n\tgiven was ‘No’.  Another relevant question was as to whether the
\n\tpatient had undergone the treatment for a period exceeding one week
\n\tin last 5 years and the answer given was ‘No’. In this light of the
\n\tfact situation the matter is to be examined as to whether such could
\n\tbe said to be suppression of material fact or not.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tbehalf of LIC, Branch Manager Shri Dilipbhai Iswarji Bhayani (PW-1)
\n\tExhibit-48 was examined, and in his deposition he had referred to
\n\thospital papers of Nadiad Kidney Hospital. Further, the
\n\tappellant-original defendant also  examined Dr. Bhavik Hiralal
\n\tShelat (PW-2) Exhibit-50, who had prepared the case papers of the
\n\tinsured and he was admitted for treatment in the said hospital on
\n\t6\/9\/1995. The History of the deceased does refer to sickness 5 years
\n\tback, but in the deposition of Dr. Shelat he had stated that, upon
\n\tinquiry from the patient it was found that some particles of blood
\n\twas found in the urine and some particles of protein was also found
\n\tin the urine about 5 years back prior to 1995 and he had taken
\n\ttreatment of steroid.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe decision of the Apex Court in case of P.C. CHACKO AND ANOTHER
\n\tVs. CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,
\n\treported in (2008) 1 SCC, pg. 321, the Apex Court while considering
\n\tthe aspect of truthfulness of the question-answer has extracted some
\n\tobservations of Madras High Court at para-19, and the relevant of
\n\twhich can be extracted here for the present matter as under.\n<\/p>\n
 The
\nprinciples underlying the doctrine of disclosure and the rule of good
\nfaith oblige the proposer to answer every question put to him with
\ncomplete honesty.  Honesty implies truthfulness. But it happens
\nthat no man can do more than say what he believes to be the truth.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tit will have to be considered as to whether the answers were
\n\thonestly  given or not with truthfulness. If, at one point of time
\n\tsome blood particles were found in the urine or the protein
\n\tparticles were found in the urine and thereafter treatment is taken
\n\tand is cured, one would not in normal circumstance carry an
\n\timpression of having kidney disease at an age of about 15 years.
\n\tFurther, it has not been stated by Dr. Shelat even in the medical
\n\thistory papers that the patient had undergone treatment for a period
\n\texceeding one week or atleast for one week as was  required to be
\n\tdisclosed at the time of proposal. Under these circumstances, it is
\n\tnot possible to believe that the answers given were not with any
\n\ttruthfulness or there was any suppression by the insured or on
\n\tbehalf of  the insured at the time when the proposal was submitted.\n<\/p>\n
Apart
\n\tfrom the above, it also deserves to be recorded that the burden in
\n\tcase of repudiation of contract of insurance would be heavily upon
\n\tthe insurance company and the reason being that the presumption
\n\twould be that the proposal was genuine, more particularly when
\n\tthrough the panel doctor of the insurance company the insured was
\n\texamined and nothing adverse was found. Even at the time when a
\n\tperson was examined by panel doctor of the insurance company,
\n\tnothing prevented him to get medically examined either by  test of
\n\tblood or otherwise if prima facie he found that such examination was
\n\trequired. It required to be hardly stated that, with the development
\n\tof medical science blood test report for renal function may disclose
\n\tthe major ailment in the kidney, if any. But in the present case
\n\tsame has neither been advised by the doctor nor such examination was
\n\tundergone. Further, if the repudiation was to be asserted by
\n\tmaintaining suppression of material fact, it was also required for
\n\tthe insurance company to prove that such blood particle or the
\n\tprotein particle found in the urine at any point of time resulted
\n\tinto kidney disease to the deceased. No such opinion has come on
\n\trecord of the expert on the said aspects. Under these circumstances,
\n\tit is not possible for us to agree with the contention of learned
\n\tcounsel for the appellant that the burden of proof required for
\n\trepudiation of contract for alleging suppression of material fact
\n\twas satisfactorily discharged by the appellant insurance company.\n<\/p>\n
If,
\n\tin view of the aforesaid, the suppression of material fact was not
\n\tproved, the ground of repudiation of contract would not be available
\n\tto the insurance company by way of defence, nor could be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\taforesaid is also coupled with the statutory provision of Section 45
\n\tof the LIC Act, which provides that the policy would not be put in
\n\tquestion after expiry of a period of 2 years. It is an admitted
\n\tposition that the period of 2 years had expired and death of the
\n\tinsured was on 15\/10\/1995 i.e. after the expiry of period of 2 years
\n\ton 24\/1\/1995.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the aforesaid observations and discussions, we find that
\n\teven if the contention of learned counsel for the appellant \/
\n\toriginal appellant-defendant is examined, it would not carry the
\n\tcase of the appellant to maintain repudiation of the contract.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the aforesaid, we find that the judgment & decree of the
\n\tCivil Court, and its confirmation thereof by learned Single Judge of
\n\tthis Court in the appellate jurisdiction does not deserve to be
\n\tinterfered with. Hence the appeal is meritless, therefore, same is
\n\tdismissed. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, no
\n\torder as to cost. Record & proceedings may be returned to the
\n\ttrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        [
\nJAYANT PATEL, J ]<\/p>\n
                                                     [
\nS.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]<\/p>\n
\/vgn<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/832\/2000 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 832 of 2000 In FIRST APPEAL No. 12 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLife vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-17T14:18:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-17T14:18:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1522,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-17T14:18:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-17T14:18:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-17T14:18:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010"},"wordCount":1522,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010","name":"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-17T14:18:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-vs-hansaben-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Life vs Hansaben on 23 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39481"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39481\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}