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

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/
Post a Comment
Read more

'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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more