CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Gautam Chourdiya, President and
Pramod Kumar Varma, Member
Branch Manager, SBI Life
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Opp. Parties
versus
Savitri Salam – Complainant
Appeal No.624 of 2024
Decided on 17.6.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41 – Insurance – Repudiation of death claim on the ground of concealment of disease – District Commission allowed complaint and directed appellants to pay insurance claim of Rs.50,00,000/-, one month penalty of Rs.10,000/- in Consumer Welfare Fund and to pay Rs.10,000/- to complainant/ respondent towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings along with cost of Rs.3,000/- – Insurance company has not been able to establish with reliable and cogent evidence that deceased life assured had any pre-existing ailments, he took treatments/ hospitalized for the same and had suppressed any such material facts relating to his medical history – Repudiation of claim on this ground is not tenable – But finding of District Commission regarding refund of insurance premium cannot be upheld – Also, no justification in imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid – Impugned order modified to the extent that appellants/ opposite party shall pay amount of insurance claim of Rs.50,00,000/- awarded by District Commission after deducting amount of premium already refunded to respondent/complainant. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
ORDER
Gautam Chourdiya, President—This appeal is filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) against order dated 14.08.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanker (C.G.) (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in complaint case No.CC/02/2024, whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties/ appellants herein were directed to pay the amount of insurance claim of death of insured husband of the complainant/ respondent Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty Lacs) along with simple interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 27.12.2023 within one month, failing which the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. The opposite parties/ appellants were further directed to deposit within one month penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) in the Consumer Welfare Fund and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) to the complainant/ respondent towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings along with cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand).
2. In nutshell the facts of the case, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant/ respondent’s husband Shravan Kumar Salam had taken two insurance policies No.5300488070707 and 45351802602, issued on 31/12/2015 and 03/09/2019 respectively, from opposite parties/ appellants insurance company, in which he had made his wife Smt. Savitri Salam the nominee. On 16/06/2021, the complainant/ respondent’s husband died due to sudden worsening of health during the corona epidemic. Claim was made before the insurer opposite parties/ appellants under both the insurance policies, but insurance claim of insurance policy No.45351802602 was rejected saying that the life assured had concealed his diabetes disease, whereas the deceased life assured Shravan Kumar Salam died as he was tested corona positive. Deceased Shravan Kumar Salam had filled the proposal form on 28/12/2015, at that time he did not have any disease, he was completely healthy and after four years, he filled the proposal form for taking the second policy on 03/08/2019, at that time also he was healthy, he did not have any disease. The opposite parties/ appellants insurer paid the sum insured of policy No.53004880707 out of the insurance claim made by the complainant/ respondent, but when the insurance claim under policy No.45351802602 was not settled, the complainant/ respondent sent a legal notice through his advocate on 06/05/2022, to which the opposite parties/ appellants insurance company replied on 27/05/2022 and informed that the policy holder Shravan Kumar Salam was suffering from diabetes at the time of insurance and refused to pay the insurance claim. Hence, the complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking direction for the opposite parties/ appellants insurer to pay sum assured of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) along with interest and other reliefs from the opposite parties under the insurance policy taken by her deceased husband.
3. The opposite parties / appellants insurance company in their written version denied all the allegations leveled in the complaint and averred inter alia that based on the information given in the proposal form and relying on the information believed to be true and accurate, the proposal form was accepted in utmost good faith and SBI Life Smart Shield Policy No.45351802602 was issued with commencement date 03/09/2019. The policy was issued for a basic sum assured of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs). In the present case the insured answered all the questions in the medical questionnaire in negative. A medical examination of the proposed life assured was also conducted but during the medical examination also the insured answered all the relevant questions in the negative. The available records prove that the deceased life assured (DLA) concealed the fact that he was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Disease and was undergoing treatment before the date of signing the p
Insurance—Repudiation of death claim on the ground of concealment of disease must be supported with reliable and cogent evidence.
Life Insurance Policy – Repudiation of death claim on the ground of suppression of material facts – Mere existence of past medical records is insufficient unless knowledge on part of insured is prove....
Medical Examination – Insurance company is responsible for conducting a medical examination of the policyholder in advance.
(1) Full Knowledge – DLA had the full knowledge of pre-existing ailments at the time of filling the proposal form and there was a nexus with preexisting disease and the cause(s) of death.(2) Proposal....
(1) The “Three-Year Rule” (Section 45) – Under the amended Section 45, a policy cannot be questioned after three years from issuance or risk commencement on any ground.(2) Agent’s Responsibility – Th....
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.