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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...