Skip to main content

Suppression of facts ground for rejection of claim

While upholding the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by LIC on the ground of suppression of material facts, as proper, NCDRC observed that a contract between the parties falls in the category of contract uberrimae fidei, meaning a contract of utmost good faith on the part of the assured. When information on a specific aspect is asked for in the proposal form, an assured is under a solemn obligation to make a true and full disclosure of the information on the subject which is within his knowledge. It is not for the proposer to determine whether the information sought for, is material for the purpose of the policy or not. Earlier the deceased obtained LIC policy of Rs.1,00,000/- which commenced from July 9, 1994. He passed away due to cerebro-vascular accident in the hospital on 14.11.1994. The parents of the deceased filed the claim before LIC, which repudiated the claim stating that the assured was suffering from infective hepatitis and was hospitalized for treatment prior to his taking the policy. Feeling aggrieved, the parents filed complaint before District Forum, which directed the complainant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 11.11.1994 till the date of payment. Cost of Rs.500/- was also awarded. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum. While hearing the revision petition filed by LIC challenging the said orders, NCDRC observed that it is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties know. The opinion of the assured, whether or not a material fact is material, is irrelevant. Even if the assured fails to disclose a fact because he does not think it is material when in fact it is, does not avail him. “The time when the proposal form is filled in, irrespective of the fact whether the risk started earlier or not, is the crucial, main pillar and the foundation upon which the whole case rests. This fact is most important, single determinant of this knotty problem. In 01.08.1994, it was in the knowledge of the assured that he was suffering from above said diseases. It was the bounden duty of the assured to disclose the facts at that time. He had no qualms about lying. Consequently, his nominee or LRs are not entitled to any compensation,” noted the Commission. While holding that, “the duty of the Consumer Fora is not to find out whether there is a nexus between the accidental death and disease suppressed by the insured. That has nothing to do with the grant of compensation. The nexus point has to be eschewed out of consideration otherwise the uberrimae fidei shall stand violated,” NCDRC set aside the orders passed by District Forum and State Commission. LIC v. Ramamani Patra, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1741 , decided on August 3, 2015

 Article referred: http://sccblog.azurewebsites.net/post/2015/09/07/ncdrc-held-repudiation-of-claim-by-lic-on-the-ground-of-suppression-of-material-facts-proper/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more