The principle of Uberrimae Fides mandates full disclosure of material facts in insurance contracts; non-disclosure leads to policy repudiation.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

HDFC STANDARD LIC FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SMT.RATNA MISHRA DATED: 03/06/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2016 (Arising out of order dated 13.10.2015 passed in C.C.No.239/2014 by District Commission, Khandwa)

1. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, WAHE GURU PLAZA, KHADAKPURA, KHANDWA (M.P.)

2. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE/REGD.OFFICE-RAMAN HOUSE, H.T.PAREKH MARG, 169, BACKWAY REVELMATION, CHURCH GATE, MUMBAI (M.S.) … APPELLANTS.

Versus SMT. RATNA MISHRA, W/O LATE SHRI AJAY MISHRA, R/O 1/1, NEAR WATER TANK, NARMADAPURAM COLONY/INDIRA COLONY, KHANDWA, DISTRICT-EAST NIMAR (M.P.) ... RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.

Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed On 03.06.2025)

Per Say Justice SunitaYadav:

This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants-insurance company is directed against the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khandwa (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 239/2014 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

-2-

2. In short facts of the case are that the complainant's husband Late Ajay Mishra during his life time had obtained a life insurance policy under CRD scheme in October-2012 from the opposite parties/appellants-insurance company for a sum of Rs.4,40,655/-. Her husband (deceased-insured) died on 19.01.2013 due to heart attack and when the claim was submitted to the insurance company, the same was repudiated by the insurance company on 04.07.2013 on account of the fact that the deceased-insured was suffering from cancer cholangio at the time of submission of proposal form and was found guilty of breach of the contract. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the insurance company approached the District Commission seeking sum insured with bonus, interest, compensation and costs.

3. The opposite party-insurance company resisted the complaint on the ground that the deceased-insured has deliberately suppressed his past medical record pertaining to a serious disease Cancer Cholangio and the complainant had obtained the insurance policy by suppressing the material fact and information. Under these circumstances the claim filed by the complainant was repudiated and while doing so there has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

-3-

4. The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties/appellants-insurance company to pay sum insured under the policy with bonus within 45 days failing which interest @ 12% p.a. will be payable on the amount. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties/appellants-insurance company argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principles of law. It is further argued that the learned District Commission completely failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased-insured was suffering from cancer as the