National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Smt Shweta Singh on 11 July, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
SECOND APPEAL NO. NC/SA/329/2025
(Against the Order dated 13th September 2024 in Appeal SC/9/A/744/2024 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)
WITH
NC/IA/7462/2025 (STAY)
NC/IA/7463/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NC/IA/7464/2025 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING TRANSLATION DOCUMENTS)
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
PRESENT ADDRESS - DIVISIONLA OFFICE AT B 12/120 GAURIGANJ BHELUPUR DISTT
VARANASI UP THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONLA MANAGERNEW DELHI,DELHI.
PERMANENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEGAL CELL , JEEVAN
PRAKASH BUILDING 25 KG MARG , 8TH FLOOR BACK SIDE , NEW DELHI,DELHI.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
SMT SHWETA SINGH
PRESENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO J 11 /11 A1 NAYIBASTI ISHWARGANJI DISTT VARANASI
UPNEW DELHI,DELHI.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
MR. RAJAT BHALLA, ADV A/W MR. C.S. GUPTA, AUTH REP
DATED: 11/07/2025
ORDER
1. Heard counsel for the Appellant.
2. Challenge is to the order dated 27.05.2025 of the State Commission vide which appeal ( First Appeal) filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed. Earlier the District Commission allowed the Complaint with following directions "The complaint is partly allowed.
The OP is directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- ( five lakh rupees) and Rs.5000/- ( five thousand rupees) as litigation expenses of policy No.566773249 within 30 (thirty days) from the date of the order. In case of not doing so, simple interest at the rate of 6% ( six percent) per annum will be payable on the entire amount from the date of filing the complaint till the date of final payment. "
3. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Appellant herein. In the memorandum of Appeal, following questions of law have been raised:
a. Whether the revival of a lapsed life insurance policy resets the one year exclusion period for suicide under standard policy terms?
b. Whether an insurer can be held liable for non-disclosure of exclusion clauses even when the policy bond is issued?
c. Whether the period of 12 months from the date of suicide i.e. 06.11.2020 is to be calculated from the issuance of the policy i.e. 25.6.2019 or from the date when the policy was revived i.e. 25.8.2020, as per the Suicide clause contained in the policy. d. Whether the presence of the clause mentioned in the policy that 12 months' period is to commence from the date of reinstatement of the policy, the reinstatement aspect ought to have been considered as held by the Apex Court in judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jaya Wadhwani [(2024) 2 SCC 427] e. Whether in the absence of any averment by the Respondent / complainant regarding the alleged non-receipt of the policy terms and conditions in the original complaint, the same was an afterthought and hence the reliance of the Ld' State Commission on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (2023) 1 SCC 428 titled as Texco Marketing Ltd. Vs. Tata AIG Insurance Co. Ltd. was misplaced.
f. Whether a consumer forum can override explicit statutory provisions like Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, by applying equitable considerations? g. Whether the terms of insurance contract have to be strictly read and natural meaning as held in the cases of Vikran Greentech (I) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2209) 5 SCC 599, United India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal JT 2004 (8) SC 8, Oriental Insurance Co. Lt. Vs. Sony Cheriyan (1999) 6 SC 451, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut ( Appeal (Civil) 1140 of 2007, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Mohini; General Assurance Society Ltd.Vs. Chandmull Jain and Anr. (1996) ACJ 267 (SC).
h. Whether the findings of the State and District Consumer Commissions suffer from material irregularity, perversity and illegality justifying interference under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
4. Counsel for the Appellant submits that policy in question was issued on 25.06.2019. The next premium was due on 25.06.2020 but was not paid. The grace period expired on 25.07.2020 and the premium was paid on 25.08.2020 and hence policy was revived w.e.f. 25.08.2020. The insured committed suicide on 06.11.2020 which is within one year from the date of revival of the policy and according to counsel for the appellant, this is under exclusion clause. He admits that suicide is beyond one year if counted from the date of original policy. He has drawn our attention to following clause of the policy:
3. Suicide : This policy shall be void i. If the Life Assured ( whether sane or insane) commits suicide at any time within 12 months from the date of commencement of risk, the Corporation will not entertain any claim under this policy except for 80% of the premiums paid excluding any extra amount if charged under the policy due to underwriting decisions and under premiums other than term assurance rider, if any, provided the police is enforce.
ii. If the Life Assured ( whether sane or insane) commits suicide within 12 months from date of revival, an amount which is higher of 80% of the premiums paid till the date of death of death excluding extra amount if charges under the policy due to underwriting decisions and rider premiums other than term Assura rice rider, if any, or the surrender value, shall be payable. The Corporation will not entertain any other claim under this policy. This clause shall not be applicable for a policy lapsed without acquiring paid up value and hence nothing shall be payable under such policies.
5. We take note of the fact that period from 25.06.2020 to 25.08.2020 is covid exempted period and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition ( C) No. 3 of 2020, has exempted the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for all limitation purposes. No doubt such policies have not been specifically covered under such exempted period, in this case, one month's delay in payment of the premium beyond the grace period falling in the Covid exempted period is condonable. Hence, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. &Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 455 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that 'Insurance Policy must be read holistically so as to give effect to reasonable expectations of all the parties including the insured and the beneficiaries - it must be interpreted in a commercial sensible manner-coverage clauses to be read broadly, and ambiguity, if any, to be resolved in favour of insured
-exclusions to be read narrowly', we hereby hold that present case should be covered under clause 3 (i) rather than clause 3 (ii).
6. State Commission has passed a well reasoned order. We find no reason to interfere with its findings. Order of the State Commission is upheld and SA is dismissed.
7. Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent(s), on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order.
8. All other pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off ..................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN MEMBER