There may be two judgments in the same case.

Liu Ping's high-profile new insurance law will commence on October 1, 2009.　　From the beginning of this period, the Great Wall Insurance Forum will, in the form of "case", compare and analyze the changes of the new Insurance Law and the amendment of the former Insurance law, and help the majority of the insured, the insured and the beneficiaries to better understand and apply the new insurance law.　　The insured person does not truthfully inform, does the insurance company pay the insurance money? January 2004, Mr. Ho to a life insurance company insured a ailing insurance, the death insurance money is 50,000 yuan. When filling out the insurance form, Mr. Ho did not indicate that he had a previous illness in the policy on the investment, Mr. He was hospitalized for the left kidney and polycystic hemorrhage in August 2006, and he died in December 2006. In January 2007, the beneficiary filed a claim, which, in the course of the claims survey, found that Mr. Ho had been examined for kidney disease in 2003.　　So, the insurance company with Mr. Ho in the insurance did not inform the previous kidney disease, did not fulfill the obligation to tell the truth, sickness insurance by exclusions, and terminate the contract.　　Mr. Ho's family sued the insurance company and asked the court to decide that it would pay 50,000 yuan.　　Application of the amendment before the "Insurance law" of the verdict: In accordance with the provisions of the law, the insured person, the insured deliberately do not perform the obligation to tell the truth, the insurer has the right to terminate the contract, the contract occurred before the accident does not bear the responsibility for the payment of insurance. The court ascertained that Mr. Ho's insurance contract with the life insurance company was lawful and valid. During the course of this insurance, Mr Ho did not inform the life insurance Company of his history of kidney disease.　　For the above reasons, the court decided in February 2007 that the life insurance company would not pay the plaintiff's insurance. Application of the new "Insurance Law" may result: the new "Insurance Law" 16th stipulates that when the applicant intentionally or because of major negligence did not fulfill the obligation to inform the insurance company to decide whether to agree to underwriting or increase the rate of insurance, the insurer has the right to terminate the contract.　　However, in order to prevent the abuse of the right of the insurance company, the new "Insurance Law" for the first time for reference to international practice, added a contract "no defense clause", the contract to terminate the right to the time limit.　　Therefore, if the above case occurs after the new law has been implemented, although the insured has not fulfilled the obligation to tell the truth, if the insurance contract has been established for more than two years, the insurance company has the responsibility to pay the insurance. The meaning of the newly added "incontestable clause": the so-called "incontestable clause" means that after the establishment of the insurance contract, the insurer shall not terminate the contract on the grounds that the applicant violates the obligation of truthful disclosure. The "incontestable clause" requires that the insurance contract is no longer controversial after the contract has been in existence for two years.　　This clause is significant to the insured under the long-term life insurance contract, which can effectively protect its rights and interests and fill the blank of the current insurance law. For the insurance company, due to the exercise of the right to rescind the time limit, the insurance company must be in the underwriting and the contract was established two years before theTo fully exercise the right of investigation in order to understand whether the applicant has not truthfully informed the situation, in order to timely exercise the right to discharge within the legal period, to ensure the reasonable profits of insurance companies and safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.