Appeals filed on; 13.O7.2023 & 12.Oa.2O23 Appeals drsposed or.: 18.O2.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMPR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH}

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SRI.RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, LADY EMBER Appeal Nos.l 264t2O23 and L79612023

1.

ApLeal No.L264l2O23 Branch Manager, HDFC Limited, Kasthurba Road, Mahatma Gandhi Road, ...Appellant/s Bengaluru - 560 00

1 (Bg Sri.Jai M.Pdtil, Aduocate)

-Versus-

Mrs.Pankaja.C, 1 W/o late Shankarlinge Gowda, Aged about 38 ,years, No. 132/1,4tt Main, 1"t Cross, Sampige Badavane, Pattegere Palya, Main Road, Bengaluru ... Respondent/s

2 M/s. HDFC Standard Life, Insurance Company Ltd, Having its Office at

11th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai - 400 011 (R 1 -Bg Sri. M. T. Anand.a, Advoc ote)

(R2-Dispensed/

2.

M/s. HDFC Standard Life, Insurance Company Ltd, Having its Office at ,,.Appellant/s

1 1tt F1oor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mil1s Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai - 4OO 011 (Bg Sri,Jai M.Patil, Ad.vocate)

-Versus-

Mrs.Pankaja.C, 1 W/o late Shankarlinge Gowda, Aged about 38 years, No.132/ 1, 4tt Main, 1"t Cross, Sampige Badavane, Pattegere Palya, Main Road, Bengaluru .., Respondent/s

2 Branch Manager, HDFC Limited, Kasthurba Road, Mahatma Gandhi Road Bengaluru - 560 001 (R 1 -Bg Sri.M.T.Anand.a, Adaocdte)

(R2-Bg Sri.Jai M.Patil, Ad.uocate)

COMMON ORDER BY SRI RAVI JUDICIAL MEMBER Both Opposite Party No.1 and 2/appellants in complaint No.34l/2021 preferred these appeals against the ('

order passed by the 1"t Additional District Consumer Commission at Bengaluru which directed these appellants to pay 7 Oo/o of the insurance amount pertaining to poiicy No.PP.000289 along wrth l2ok interest within two months from the date of order ti1l realization and further directed pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 0,000/- Iitigation expenses.

1

2. The gist of the complaint is that, the complainant,s husband one Sri.M.N.Shankaralinge Gowda had availed a housing loan from the 2"d respondent bank and later he died on 4.1O.2020. At the time of availing a 1oan, he opted for insurance covering the risk of loan amount (loan protection policy). Such being the case, he died on 4.10.2020, the complainant being a nominee had claimed for policy coverage and sought for payment of assured amount to the tune of Rs.40,86,I14 l-, the said claim was repudiated by these appellants, for the reason that the tife assured had a pre-existing heart ailment and hypertension, the same was not disclosed at the time of taking the policv, hence under the clause of non-disclosure of pre,existing diseases, the claim u as repudiated. Agarnst ri-hich, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficien of service and sought for assured amount as the (' .)

complainant's husband was died due to Covid 20t9 impact and not due to any heart diseases. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed these appellants to pay 70% of the assured amount with interest as cited in the order along u,'ith compensation and directed the appellants to pav n'ithin 30 days.

3. The appellants approached this Commission seeking to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and submit that the husband of the complainant was died due to Ischemic Heart Disease Myocardial Infarction. In this regard, the hospitals have given a report stating the cause of death is due to Heart Attack and Myocardial Infarction. The said heart disease was not disclosed by the life assured during obtaining the poiicy. The District Commission failed to appreciate the said facts had aliowed the complaint, the complainant though she is a nominee are not entitled to get any compensation/assured amount under the policy, hence prays to set aside tl-re order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest and justice and equity.

4. Heard from the both parties

5.