Skip to main content

Man withheld vital information: NCDRC denies insurance claim

The apex consumer commission has denied insurance claim to the wife of a man, who was insured with LIC and died in 1999, noting that he had withheld material information at the time of taking the policy.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice D K Jain, denied the insurance claim while setting aside the order passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in which the state commission had asked the insurance company to pay Rs 1.03 lakh to Neelam Sharma, a resident of Ajmer, Rajastan.

"...We are of opinion that the answers given by insured in proposal form were untrue to his knowledge. There was clear suppression of 'material facts' in regard to the health of the insured," the NCDRC bench said.

It added that it was not for insurer Krishanavtar Sharma, to determine whether information sought for in questionnaire was material for the purpose of the two policies.

"At any rate, the statements made in the proposal form were untrue and incorrect...We are, therefore, of the opinion that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent," it said.

Krishanavtar Sharma had taken two life insurance policies of Rs 50,000 each from the company. During the validity period of the policies, he died due to heart attack on December 31, 1999.

On the death of her husband, Neelam Sharma sought a claim from the company. The claim, however, was repudiated on the ground that Krishanavtar had suppressed material information regarding his health at the time of taking the life insurance policies.

The company contended before the commission that as per information available with it, two years prior to taking the policies, Krishanavtar had been suffering from Amoebic Liver Abscess and had also been hospitalised in this connection in June 1997.

But these material facts were not disclosed by him in the proposal form and, therefore, it was not liable to pay assured amount under the policies, it added.

Earlier, when Neelam had approached a district consumer forum against the company's refusal to give claim, the forum had asked the firm to pay Rs 1,03,000 to the woman. The forum's order was also upheld by Rajasthan State Consumer Commission.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/man-withheld-vital-information-ncdrc-denies-insurance-claim-114100600493_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even