CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.
Padma Pandey, Presiding Member
SBI Life Insurance
Company Ltd. and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Sujata Kakkar and Ors. – Respondents
Appeal No.103 of 2025
Decided on 1.12.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Insurance – Life Insurance Policy – Repudiation of death claim on the ground of suppression of material facts – Complaint partly allowed by District Commission with direction to pay sum assured of Rs.15,50,000/- to complainant along with 6% interest – Insurer did not examine treating Doctors, did not file affidavits of Medical Practitioners who allegedly treated deceased and did not prove medical documents in accordance with Evidence Act – Insurer has failed to discharge burden of proving pre-existing disease – Plea of non-disclosure, being unsupported by reliable and proved evidence, was rightly rejected – Even assuming that deceased had been treated for certain ailments in the past, there was no evidence that he had knowledge of such disease at the time of taking policy or filing Proposal Form – Non-disclosure must be willful and intentional – Mere existence of past medical records is insufficient unless knowledge on part of insured is proved – Finding of District Commission that no intentional suppression has been established is absolutely justified – Insurer repudiated claim solely on the basis of unverified medical papers without conducting any meaningful investigation – No ground to interfere with impugned order. (Paras 14, 15, 16 and 20)
Result: First Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Rajesh K. Arya, Member—The instant appeal has been filed by opposite parties No.3 & 4 - SBI Life Insurance Company Limited (appellants herein) for setting aside order dated 20.12.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘District Commission’) vide which, Consumer Complaint bearing No.168 of 2020 filed by the complainant - Mrs. Sujata Kakkar (respondent No.1 herein) has been partly allowed against the appellants (opposite parties No.3 & 4) by granting following relief:-
“13] In view of the above discussion, it can be safely concluded that the act of OP No.3 & 4/Insurer in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant is not only wrong and arbitrary but also certainly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. OP No.3 & 4 are directed to pay the sum assured Rs.15,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 31.07.2019 till the date of its actual realization.
14] The complaint qua OP No.1 & 2 stands dismissed.
15] The above said order shall be complied with by the OP No.3 & 4 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
2. In brief, the case of the complainant before the District Commission was that her husband Late Sh. Rajinder Puri was working in the office of the Accountant General (A&E) Punjab and had taken a house loan of Rs.15,50,000/- from opposite party No.1. In order to secure the House Loan, opposite party No.1 insisted for Life Insurance Cover and recommended opposite party No.3 to do the job of insuring the complainant’s husband. Opposite party No.3 issued a SBI Life RiNn Raksha Insurance Policy and Membership Form for a period from 11.08.2017 to 11.08.2027, which was filled up on 15.06.2017 for an insured amount of Rs.15,50,000/- after taking a premium of Rs.9,244/- in which the complainant is the nominee. The policy was issued without medical examination and without any terms & conditions, which were never told to the complainant’s husband. The husband of the complainant died on 02.06.2019 due to Cardiac Arrest. The complainant raised the claim by filing claim form (Annexure C-4) as well as medical attendant certificate (Annexure C-5) of Govt. Multi Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh alongwith all the relevant documents. The complainant also showed her difficulty in making the payment of installments of house loan due to her husband’s death. Since opposite party No.1 insisted the complainant to pay the loan installments, she approached the officials of opposite party Insurance Company to speed up the matter for settlement. To the utter surprise of the complainant, opposite party No.3 repudiated the genuine death claim of complainant’s husband on 31.07.2019) on the grounds of suppression of material facts i.e. husband of complainant at the time of taking the policy gave wrong information regarding his health and the medical record shows otherwise. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No.3 and tried to convince that whatever was stated in the proposal form was correct, nowhere the complainant’s husband given a false information, the question No.5(i) and 5(iii) of proposal form were replied correctly as neither the complainant’s husband suffered from those diseases nor taken any treatment qua those diseases and complainant was very active, living healthy life. Therefore, the question of not disclosing the material facts does not arise but opposite party No.3 did not review the rejection of claim. Alleging aforesaid acts amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the sum assured of Rs.15,50,000/- along with interest, compensation for mental agony & harassme
P.C. Chacko and another v. Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India and others
Satwant Kaur Sandhu v. New India Assurance Company Limited
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jaganath (AIR 1994 SC 853). (Para 8) – Distinguished.
Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain and Others
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....
(1) The Principle of Uberrima Fides (Utmost Good Faith) – The Commission reiterated that the relationship between an insurer and the insured is founded on mutual trust. The insured is under a “solemn....
Insurance—Repudiation of death claim on the ground of concealment of disease must be supported with reliable and cogent evidence.
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.