SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR
Gautam Chourdiya, President, Smt. Ruchi Goel, Member, Gopal Chandra Shil, Member and Pramod Kumar Varma, Member
In the Matter of: Pramerica Life
Insurance Limited (Formerly Known
as DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance
Company Ltd.) – Appellant
versus
Vijay Lakshmi Sharma and Anr. – Respondents
Decided on 6.12.2022
Appeal No.FA/22/13

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Shri N. D. Manikpuri, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Shri Santosh Tiwari, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Six months - Section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938 also is of no help the complainant as in the present case the insured died within six months of taking the insurance policy.
(2) Proposal form - The proposal form also has declaration of the deceased insured, duly signed, to the effect that in case any of the statement made in the proposal form, is found false or incorrect or untrue, then the contract of insurance shall be invalidated.
(3) Contract of Insurance - the contract of insurance is based on utmost confidence and good faith between the parties, in respect of the facts stated in the proposal form, as well as in the insurance policy and the parties mutually believe on the version of each other in respect of those facts.
(4) Material facts - If the agreement of insurance is made on the basis of the facts, which were incorrect, then definitely the Insurance Company was having right to avoid it’s liability, on the ground of fraud and suppression of material facts at the time of making proposal for the contract of insurance.



Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41 – Appeal Against order of District Commission - Services – medical Insurance – death of patient - Repudiation of Claim – suppression of Material facts – proposal form - non disclosure of existing illness – Repudiation justified - The Discharge Summary dated 21/11/2017, Annexure OP1/D clearly shows that the deceased Kamlesh Sharma suffered congestive cardiac failure for which he was treated, admitted in ICU and further procedures were adopted between 18/11/2017 to 21/11/2017. This fact was suppressed by the deceased. In the application form filled for obtaining life insurance cover, all the questions regarding existing diseases as well as previous treatments and hospitalization have been replied in ‘No’ by the deceased, which amounts suppression of material facts regarding his health condition and treatment. Whereas, just below the Medical Questionnaire on the same page, he declared that he has given all the information to the best of his knowledge and nothing has been concealed. He also declared that the said form will constitute as part of application form for insurance policy and any event of failure to disclose any material fact will invalidate the insurance itself. He has also declared that he understood in case of any fraud or misrepresentation by him the policy will be cancelled with payment of its surrender value, if any. Further he has also declared that the content of the form and document has been fully explained to him and he has fully understood the significance of the proposed contract - Section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938 also is of no help the complainant as in the present case the insured died within six months of taking the insurance policy - Undoubtedly, the contract of insurance is based on utmost confidence and good faith between the parties, in respect of the facts stated in the proposal form, as well as in the insurance policy and the parties mutually believe on the version of each other in respect of those facts. If the agreement of insurance is made on the basis of the facts, which were incorrect, then definitely the Insurance Company was having right to avoid it’s liability, on the ground of fraud and suppression of material facts at the time of making proposal for the contract of insurance - The proposal form also has declaration of the deceased insured, duly signed, to the effect that in case any of the statement made in the proposal form, is found false or incorrect or untrue, then the contract of insurance shall be invalidated. He also declared that the content of the form and document has been fully explained to him and he had fully understood the significance of the proposed contract. These declarations authorize the insurance company to avoid its liability under the insurance policy as it absolutely became null and void on the basis of deliberate suppression of material facts by the deceased insured for obtaining the insurance cover – Therefore, appeal succeeds and is allowed. [Paras 14 to 19]

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Gautam Chourdiya, President—This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short), is directed against order dated 26/11/2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kabirdham (hereinafter referred as “District Commission” for brevity), in Complaint Case No.CC/2021/01 filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 herein, whereby the opposite party No.1/appellant herein was held deficient in service and partly allowing the complaint the opposite party No.1/appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay the opposite party No.2/respondent No.2 Bank, the remaining amount of loan obtained by the deceased Kamlesh Sharma. It was also directed that if the loan amount has been repaid by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 Bank, then the opposite party No.1 Insurance Company shall pay the amount of loan to the complainant/respondent No.1 adjusting the amount of premium Rs.31,349.06 returned by the insurance company. Apart from that the opposite party No.1/appellant insurance company was also directed to pay the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

2. In nutshell the undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant’s husband Late Kamlesh Sharma purchased an Ashok Leyland Truck bearing registration No.CG 09 JG 6579 after obtaining loan from the opposite party No.2/respondent No.2 Bank. The respondent No.2 Bank, after obtaining premium, got the vehicle insured from Cholamandalam Insurance Company for the period between 31/01/2019 to 30/01/2020. For the purpose of security of the loan amount of Rs.31,00,000/- a life insurance cover of the deceased Kamlesh Sharma under group scheme was also obtained by the respondent No.2 Bank from the opposite party No.1/ appellant herein Insurance Company, for which premium was taken from the deceased husband of the complainant. Insurance certificate was issued by the opposite party No.1/ appellant Insurance Company and the period of coverage was 02/02/2019 to 01/02/2021. During the period of insurance cover, on 14/08/2019 the insured Kamlesh Sharma husband of the complainant died. Intimation was given to the insurance company, who assured the complainant that as per the insurance policy the remaining amount of loan will be paid by the opposite party No.1, Insurance Company to the opposite party No.2 Bank. But the opposite party No.1 Insurance Company by letter dated 29.11.2019 informed the complainant that benefit of the insurance cover under Group Credit Life Insurance cannot be given to her and the actual premium Rs.31,349.06 paid by the deceased Kamlesh Sharma, was refunded to the opposite party No.2 Bank. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim and not depositing the entire balance amount of loan under the insurance cover, complaint was filed before the District Commission. Before District Commission both the opposite parties appeared and filed their written version and defended their case. Learned District Commission in the impugned order has held the Insurance Company deficient in service and directed them as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.

3. Before the District Commission in its written version, the opposite party No.1/appellant herein has mainly raised the ground that at the time of filling the proposal form for insurance cover, the deceased Kamlesh Sharma gave wrong information regarding his medical history and he concealed the material fact that he was suffering from heart disease, hypertension and diabetes mellitus. The life assured has failed to observe the principle of utmost good faith i.e. doctrine of uberimafides at the time of taking policy. Citing a number of judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission, the Insurance Company has contended that the words in an insurance contract must be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top