NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER & MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER
RAMRATTI - Petitioner
Versus
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 409 of 2013
Decided On : 15-10-2014
Insurance - Disclosure of Material Facts - Contract of Insurance - Doctrine of Utmost Good Faith - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 19 - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 45 - LIC of India (Employees) Pension) Rules, 1995 - [MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER] - [Insurance - Disclosure of Material Facts] - [Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 19; Insurance Act, 1938, Section 45; LIC of India (Employees) Pension) Rules, 1995] - The court discussed the doctrine of utmost good faith in the conduct of the insured and the obligation to disclose all aspects of health at the time of submitting the proposal form. The court referred to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 19 and the Insurance Act, 1938, Section 45, and emphasized the importance of full disclosure of material facts in a contract of insurance. The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the life assured to disclose his chronic alcoholic and smoker status, leading to the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband, an Air India employee, had a LIC policy but died due to chronic liver disease. The insurance claim was repudiated on the ground that the deceased had not disclosed his chronic alcoholic and smoker status in the proposal form.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the life assured had concealed material facts regarding his health, and the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay any benefits as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The court dismissed the complaint and set aside the order of the District Consumer Forum.
Issues: The main issue was whether the failure to disclose the life assured's chronic alcoholic and smoker status in the proposal form justified the repudiation of the insurance claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the doctrine of utmost good faith in the conduct of the insured, as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 19, and the Insurance Act, 1938, Section 45. The failure to disclose material facts led to the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the decision of the State Commission to set aside the complaint and reject the insurance claim.
ORDER :
MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER
1. Revision Petition No. 409 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 18.10.2012, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (short, “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1476 of 2006.
2. Brief facts of the case as per petitioner/complainant are that Shri Chander Hass Yadav, husband of the petitioner was serving in Air India as ASO and took a LIC policy on 28.2.2001 for Rs. l lakh. Unfortunately, the life insured died on 19.1.2004 of Septic Shock, as per death summary issued by Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute for Liver, Renal and Digestive Diseases, New Delhi. The petitioner submitted a claim with the respondent but the same was repudiated on the ground that before taking of the policy, the life assured was chronic alcoholic as well as a chronic smoker for the last 30 years and had been diagnosed as a patient of severe upper Gl Hemorrhage and Grade IV Desophageal Varices for which he was taking medical treatment from Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute for Liver, Renal and Digestive Diseases, New Delhi. This fact, however, was not disclosed by him in the proposal form while giving his personal statement. Hence, the petitioner challenged the repudiation of her claim by filing a complaint.
3. ‘Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (short, ‘District Forum’) has stated that;
4. District Forum vide order dated 12.5.2006 while allowing the complaint observed that:
In view of the above discussion, we have no option except to allow the present complaint. Accordingly, present complaint is hereby allowed by giving direction to pay Rs. 1 lakh including all benefits comes under the policy as insured sum to the complainant within a period of one month. Accordingly, present complaint is hereby disposed of.”
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission in its impugned order dated 18.10.2012 held as under:
Mrs. Rubi Chandra Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
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.