STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 272 of 2025 Date of Institution : 18.09.2025 Date of Decision : 09.02.2026

1. Amandeep Kaur W/o Chand Partap Singh (now deceased) R/o House No. 954, Phase 11, SAS Nagar, Mohali

2. Ayan Singh S/o Chand Partap Singh (now deceased) R/o House No.954, Phase 11, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Through his guardian mother Amandeep Kaur)

(Legal heirs of Chand Partap Singh)

….Appellants/Complainants VERSUS HDFC Life, through its General Manager, Official address: SCO No.149 to 151, Ground Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh, Pin Code - 160022 …..Respondent/Opposite Party BEFORE:- JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:-

Sh. Vaibhav Mittal and Sh. Gurnoor Singh, Advocates for the appellants Ms. Monika Thatai, Advocate for the respondent PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the complainants i.e.

legal heirs of the deceased - Chand Partap Singh, seeking setting aside of order dated 30.07.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission) dismissing their consumer compliant bearing No.442 of

2023 with no order as to costs.

2. It was the case of the complainants (appellants herein) before the District Commission that the deceased, Mr. Chand Partap S/o Gurpartap Singh, had purchased a life insurance policy bearing No.2246360, HDFC Life Click 2 Protect 3D Plus, on 29.03.2020 with a sum assured of ₹50,00,000/- and duly nominated his wife, complainant No.1 as the beneficiary, having regularly paid all premiums without default. The policyholder expired on 18.12.2022 due to hypertension and diabetes as per the death summary report issued by Sohana Hospital, Mohali and death certificate dated 26.12.2022. Upon submission of all requisite documents, complainant's claim was arbitrarily rejected by the opposite parties on the grounds of alleged preexisting conditions, despite no such disclosure or evidence at the time of policy issuance, thereby amounting to unjust denial and non-adherence to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Hari Om Agarwal v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. C.W.P.(C) No.656 of 2007, which categorically held that claims cannot be denied solely on the basis of lifestyle diseases such as hypertension and diabetes that are common and do not warrant total repudiation unless actively suppressed. The complainants made several representations to the opposite parties at its Chandigarh office but were met with apathy and excuses, causing mental agony and harassment. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. On the other hand, the opposite party (respondent herein), while resisting the consumer complaint by filing its written version before the District Commission, pleaded that the deceased life Assured (DLA) was suffering from Hypertension, Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Liver Disease well before the submission of the proposal form and these material pre-existing ailments were deliberately suppressed at the time of availing the policy. It was further pleaded that the failure to disclose these critical health conditions constituted misrepresentation and breach of utmost good faith, thereby inviting the provisions of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, which permitted repudiation of claim in such circumstances. It was further pleaded that the DLA's unfortunate demise due to Acute Chronic Liver Failure precipitated by chronic liver disease and excessive alcohol consumption further substantiated the existence of these undisclosed medical issues. It was further pleaded that had such facts been truthfully disclosed, the opposite party would have declined to issue the policy and as such, the claim of the complainants was rightly repudiated. Alleging no deficiency in service or unfair trade