Insurers can reject life insurance claims for non-disclosure of previous policies, highlighting the necessity for utmost good faith in insurance contracts.

1. The above named complainant has filed this complaint under Clauses (c), (d),(g) and (r) of Sub-section (1) of S.2 read with S.12 and S.14 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred as "The Act or "Act) and prayed for the relief as under:
(a) Be pleased to direct the opponent to pay Rs. 25,00,000 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation, i.e. 30.1.2016
(b) Be pleased to direct the opponent to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000 for mental pain and harassment to the complainant.
(c) Be pleased to direct the opponent to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 to complainant towards the cost of this litigation.
(d) Any other appropriate order may be passed looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The complainant is mother (legal heir) and nominee of deceased Kishor Govindbhai Makvana (herein after referred as "Life Assured or "DLA or "Proponent), who had availed life insurance policy known as "Aviva 1 Life from the opponent on payment of Rs. 3523 towards premium for sum assured Rs. 25,00,000 having premium paying term of 35 years. It is stated in complaint that policy was commenced on 24.7.2014 and was to mature on 24.7.2049. The complainant stated in complaint that DLA died on 2.10.2014 due to Acute Gastro - enteritis Dehydration and secondary cause was diagnosed as Cardio respiratory failure. It is stated in complaint that the doctor who attended DLA last had issued certificate and death was registered before competent local authority. The complainant, being nominee and beneficiary intimated death to the opponent and submitted claim before opponent Insurance Company. It is stated that though the complainant inquired about process of claim the opponent did not paid any heed to it and ultimately vide letter dated 30.1.2016 disowned liability on the ground that DLA has multiple insurance policies and the same was not disclosed and suppressed in the proposal form. It is submitted that non - disclosure of other policies if any, is never material fact and the entire claim cannot be repudiated on this ground. It is stated that DLA had given right information about his age and details of other insurance policies. It is stated that DLA was illiterate and not known to English language but he had given all correct answer to Sales Manager of the opponent company and the said person has filled up form online and the said form was signed by DLA in Gujarati language. Thus, complainant states that there is nothing which can be said suppressed material fact and proponent did not have committed any fraud with opponent company. The opponent Insurance Company did not considered this aspect and denied its liability and therefore guilty of deficiency in service and therefore direction is require to discharge its contractual obligation and also pay compensation as prayed for. The complainant has placed on record copy of insurance policy with annexure, copy of death certificate, copy of doctor certificate and copy of repudiation letter dated 30.1.2016.

3. After preliminary hearing, this Commission vide its order dated 19.10.2016 ordered to admit complaint for adjudication and issued notice to the opponent. On receipt of notice, the opponent appeared through Advocate and filed reply which was taken on record on 30.7.2018. The opponent mainly contended that since the DLA had not disclosed correct information as regards to other policies in his name, it is suppression of material information and there is large scale fraud which would require elaborate evidence and therefore this Commission do not have competent jurisdiction. It is also contended that DLA had also not gave correct information about his heal