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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...