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

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...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...