Repudiation of an insurance claim is justifiable when material misrepresentation is established.

1. Heard Mr. Mohit Beniwal, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Joydip Bhattacharya, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2. Pramod Kumar has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) pay insurance claim of Rs. 1 crore with interest @18% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment; (ii) pay Rs. 5 lakh, for deficiency in service; (iii) pay Rs. 10 lakh, for mental agonyand harassment; (iv) pay Rs. 75,000, towards litigation costs; and (v) any other relief which isdeemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.

3. The complainant stated that he was the brother and nominee of the deceased life insured Pradip Kumar, who had obtained Life Insurance Policy No. 16957808, dated 14.7.2014 from the opposite party, valid for 30 years. Pradip Kumar was admitted in Jeevan Nursing Home due to chest pain on 21.7.2015 around 22:00 hours, where he died on 21.7.2015 at 23:00 hours.Premium of the policy was due on 4.8.2015, which could not be paid due to the death of the insured. The nominee of the insured filed insurance claim with the opposite party, who, vide letter dated 5.3.2016, repudiated the claim on the ground that in the proposal form the insured had given wrong information regarding his income and occupation. The agent of the opposite party had obtained the signature of the insured on the blank application form and the insured had not filled up the proposal form in his hand writing. The deceased life insured supplied the requisite documents sought by the opposite party including copy of the ITR. After satisfaction with the deceased life insured's occupation, income and other particulars, the opposite party issued the insurance policy in question. The deceased life insured had not suppressed any material fact nor misrepresented the opposite party. Incorrect information in the application, if any, is unintentional and due to negligence of the agent of the opposite party. The insured washaving good income, which is clear from the ITR annexed along with the application form. The Insured also started his business as a commission agent with Fair Trade Commodity Broking Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwani. He was also having ancestral agricultural land having annual income of Rs. 4 lakh. All these information / documents were supplied to the opposite party. Moreover, wrong information about the occupation is not such a serious in nature, which can affect the root conditions of the policy. The deceased life insured did not conceal the material fact relating to health condition or any medical related information. The complainant had no reason to conceal any fact relating to his occupation when he had sufficient income. At the time of taking thepolicy, the insured worked in "Fairtrade Commodity Broking Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant was the Managing Director of the said Company. In the proposal form the agent / staff of the opposite party wrote the name of the Company as "Fairtred. No such document was provided either to the agent or staff of the opposite party of above company. Aforesaid wrong information filled in the proposal form was due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party and its representative. There was no suppression of material fact by the complainant. The opposite party illegally repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 5.3.2016.

4. The Insurer filed its written reply on 3.4.2017 and contested the complaint. The Insurer stated that the deceased life insured (hereinafter referred to as "DLA) had obtained the insurance policy by supressing the material fact relating to annual income and violated the principle of uberrima fides, i.e. utmost good faith. The DLA had provided incorrect information in respect of his occupation, income and marital status in the proposal f