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

2025 Supreme(All) 2260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit, JJ.
Santosh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Secretary/Deputy Secretary/Secretary Insurance Ombudsman - Respondent
Writ (C) No. 21818 of 2023
Decided On : 29-04-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Hari Bans Singh
For the Respondent: Shruti Malviya

The insurer cannot repudiate a life insurance claim based on non-disclosure of a previous policy if it failed to verify existing records, as this does not constitute material suppression.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 45 - Writ petition seeking to quash rejection of life insurance claim - Claim denied on grounds of non-disclosure of previous policy - Court held that non-disclosure of previous policy was not material suppression, as the insurer had failed to verify existing records - The insured had disclosed previous policies to the agent, who assured her that details were recorded - The insurer's repudiation was arbitrary and against established principles of law. (Paras 22-28)

(B) Insurance Contracts - Duty of Disclosure - The principle of utmost good faith requires both parties to disclose material facts - If a column in the proposal form is left blank, the insurer must inquire further; failure to do so waives the right to later claim non-disclosure. (Paras 22.4, 25)

(C) Jurisdiction of Insurance Ombudsman - The Ombudsman's rejection of the complaint was based on vague and insufficient grounds, lacking consideration of merits. (Paras 14, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s wife obtained a life insurance policy for Rs. 15 lakh and passed away shortly after. The claim was rejected by the insurer citing non-disclosure of a previous policy. The petitioner contended that he had disclosed all necessary details to the agent, who assured him that prior policies were recorded.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the insurer's rejection was arbitrary and that the petitioner had not willfully concealed information, thus ruling in favor of the petitioner.

Issues: The main issues were whether the non-disclosure of a previous policy constituted material suppression and the validity of the Ombudsman's rejection of the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the insurer has a duty to verify information and cannot repudiate the claim based on a blank column in the proposal form, especially when both policies were with the same insurer.

Result: Writ petition allowed; orders quashed and the insurer directed to pay the claim.

Table of Content
1. writ petition for insurance claim dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's arguments against claim rejection. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis of claim rejection grounds. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. principles of material fact disclosure in insurance. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. court's final order to quash rejection and direct payment. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated May 19, 2023 whereby Assistant Secretary/Deputy Secretary/Secretary, Insurance Ombudsman, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.1’) has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against rejection of life insurance claim by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) Division Office, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.3’) concerning policy no.205602934 vide impugned order dated March 23, 2021 which has also been challenged. The petitioner further prays to command the respondents to release the amount of insurance claim of his deceased wife in favour of petitioner.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the present writ petition is delineated below:

a. On August 16, 2018 the petitioner’s wife, Late Meera Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘insured’) obtained a life insurance policy from Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘LIC’), bearing Policy No.205602934, for a sum assured Rs. 15 lakh through an LIC agent. The petitioner, being the husband of the insured, was duly nominated as the nominee in the said policy. Upon deposit of the first premium amounting to Rs.1,15,416/- the policy bond was issued and delivered to the insured through the LIC agent.

b. While applying for the policy, the insured allegedly furnished all the requisite details in the application form in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by LIC as instructed by the agent. Moreover, it was affirmed that no material information was concealed or misrepresented.

c. Unfortunately, on July 8, 2019 the insured passed away due to a heart attack. Thereafter, petitioner, in his capacity as a nominee, submitted a representation before the Branch Manager, LIC, Phoolpur Branch, Prayagraj seeking disbursement of the insurance claim arising out of the death of his wife.

d. As per the terms and conditions of the LIC policy, upon the death of the insured, the entire sum assured becomes payable to the nominee. In the present case, the petitioner, being the nominee, became entitled to receive the death claim benefits.

e. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application requesting disbursement of the death claim under the policy dated August 16, 2018. However, vide impugned order dated March 23, 2021, respondent no.3 repudiated the petitioner’s claim, stating that insured had withheld correct information regarding her previous policy at the time of effecting the present assurance, thereby, violating the disclosure requirements. It was alleged that non-disclosure of such material information constituted concealment, and therefore, the claim was held to be non payable. The petitioner was however, granted liberty to approach the Zonal Manager, Kanpur, in case he was dissatisfied with the rejection of claim.

f. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on April 16, 2021 before the Regional Manager, LIC Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.2’), requesting therein for release of the death claim.

g. The petitioner submitted another representation dated July 20, 2021 before the Chairman of Yogkshem Jeevan Beema, Mumbai, seeking redressal against the rejection of the insurance claim pursuant to the order dated March 23, 2021 issued by the respondent no.3.

h. On August 13, 2021, the insurance claim of petitioner's wife was rejected by respondent no.2 on the ground of

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