Skip to main content

Non Disclosure Of Pre-Existing Illness In MediClaim Proposal Form A Valid Ground For Repudiation

In CIVIL APPEAL NO.3944 OF 2019,  LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs MANISH GUPTA, the claim of the insured after Mitral Valve Replacement surgery was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was suffering from a pre-existing illness. In the proposal form the insured had under disclosure of health details and medical information under the column of 'past history', among  which “cardiovascular disease e.g.: Palpitations, heart attack, stroke, chest pain” was included, had replied in the negative. The District Forum held in favour of the respondent. The NCDRC, while affirming the SCDRC, held that though the treating doctor had recorded, under the column of 'past history', that this was a known case of rheumatic heart disease since childhood, the notes did not indicate that it had been recorded on the basis of the information furnished by the patient.

The insurer argued before the Supreme Court that the Health-plus policy falls in the NMG category where the insured is not subjected to a medical examination before the issuance of the policy. Hence, it is a solemn obligation of the proposer to truthfully fill out the details required by the insurer in the proposal form on the basis of which the insurer takes a decision in regard to the issuance of the policy. Hence, it was urged that the onus was on the insured to provide material particulars of his health since no medical examination was mandated. In the present case, it has been submitted that, ex facie, there was a breach on the part of the insured in suppressing information pertaining to the fact that he had been suffering from rheumatic heart disease since childhood. Hence, on this ground, the repudiation was sought to be justified. The insured on the other hand stated that the 'past history' recorded by the doctor was not based on any information provided by the insured, therefore he cannot be faulted for any noting which has been made by the doctor in the course of treatment.

The Supreme Court observed that the insured had clearly stated in the form that he was not suffering from any disease while the past history has been adverted to as a “known case of rheumatic heart disease since childhood”. Apart from the fact that this information would be recorded on the basis of information divulged by the patient, this aspect of the recording of the past history by Fortis Hospital was never in dispute and also  the treatment record indicates that the respondent was operated for MVR. The nature of the diagnosis has been reflected as rheumatic heart disease. The hospital treatment form is along the same lines.

Based on the above findings, the Supreme Court decided that there was a clear failure on the part of the respondent to disclose that he had suffered from rheumatic heart disease since childhood and that the failure of the insured to disclose the past history of cardiovascular disease was a valid ground for repudiation.

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more