SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, S. A. Bobde, JJ.
Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar And Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8245 OF 2015
Decided On : 05-10-2015
Insurance Claim - Concealment of Medical Condition - The court held that the concealment of a non-life-threatening medical condition by the insured did not justify the repudiation of the insurance claim, as the cause of death was unrelated to the concealed condition.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased had concealed a non-life-threatening medical condition when taking out a life insurance policy. The insurance claim was repudiated based on this concealment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the concealment of the medical condition did not justify the repudiation of the insurance claim, as the cause of death was unrelated to the concealed condition. The National Commission's decision to uphold the repudiation was deemed incorrect and not justified.
Issues: Concealment of medical condition, Repudiation of insurance claim
Ratio Decidendi: The concealment of a non-life-threatening medical condition by the insured did not justify the repudiation of the insurance claim, as the cause of death was unrelated to the concealed condition.
Final Decision: The court set aside the National Commission's order and allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to accept the claim made by the appellants and make the due payment within four weeks.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as “the National Commission”) in Revision Petition No. 3809 of 2009.
3. The husband of appellant No. 1 herein had taken out a Life Insurance Policy. At the time of taking the policy, he had concealed the fact that he was suffering from lumbar spondilitis with PID with sciatica for which ailment he was taking medical treatment as also he had availed leave on medical grounds.
4. After the policy was given to the husband of appellant No. 1, he suffered myocardial infarction and succumbed to the ailment. When the appellants made a claim in terms of the life insurance policy, they were told that because the deceased had not disclosed his ailment of lumbar spondilitis with PID with sciatica at the time of filling up of the proposal form, therefore, the claim was repudiated.
5. The repudiation of the appellants' claim has been upheld by the National Commission and it is under these circumstances the appellants are before this Court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the ailment that the deceased was suffering from was a life threatening disease which could or did cause the death of the insured. In fact, the clear case is that the deceased died due to ischaemic heart disease and also because of myocardial infarction. The concealment of lumbar spondilitis with PID with sciatica persuaded the respondent not to grant the insurance claim.
8. We are of the opinion that the National Commission was in error in denying to the appellants the insurance claim and accepting the repudiation of the claim by the respondent. The death of the insured due to ischaemic heart disease and myocardial infarction had nothing to do with his lumbar spondilitis with PID with sciatica. In our considered opinion, since the alleged concealment was not of such a nature as would disentitle the deceased from getting his life insured, the repudiation of the claim was incorrect and not justified.
9. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the National Commission and allow the appeal. The respondent will accept the claim made by the appellants within a period of four weeks from today and make the due payment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.