Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.7. The opposite party thereafter approached the NCDRC through Revision Petition No.1268 of 2019, challenging the order passed by the State Commission in FA No.94 of 2015. The NCDRC, vide impugned judgment, agreed with the opposite party that the deceased-insured had withheld the information in respect of several insurance policies which he had taken from other insurers. The NCDRC observed that on the one hand, the opposite party had duly stated the details of the other policies in their affidavit, but on the other, the complainant, even in her affidavit filed by way of evidence, did not claim that the policies mentioned in the written version of the opposite party had not been taken by the deceased. Reliance was further placed by the NCDRC on the judgment of this Court in Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod, (2019) 6 SCC 175, (“Rekhaben”) wherein the repudiation of the claim due to suppression of the fact of other existing insurance policies was upheld by the Supreme Court. The NCDRC held that the Supreme Court’s judgment would prevail over the judgments of the NCDRC relied upon by the State Consumer forum and thus, the revision petition was allowed and the consumer complaint was dismissed.

33. Whether the information with regard to previous policies from other insurers is a material fact or not has already been dealt with by this Court in the judgment of Rekhaben. The facts of the said case were that the insured therein had taken a policy of life insurance from Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 10.07.2009 for a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs. Barely two months thereafter, on 16.09.2009, the insured submitted a proposal for a life insurance term plan policy of Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd for an insurance cover of Rs. 10 lakhs. One of the questions that the proposer was required to answer in the proposal form was whether he was currently insured or had previously applied for life insurance cover, critical illness cover or accident benefit cover. This query was answered in the negative. In substance, the information regarding life insurance policy earlier taken had to be mentioned. The query was answered as “NA” or “not applicable” response. The appellant company therein issued a policy of life insurance to the spouse of the respondent on 22.09.2009. The respondent spouse died on 08.02.2010. A claim for payment of Rs.10 lakhs was submitted. On coming to know that the spouse of the respondent therein had been insured with another private insurance company for a sum of Rs.11 lakhs and that the claim had been settled, the appellant company repudiated the claim stating that there was suppression of material fact inasmuch as there was glaring omission in the mentioning of details of the life insurance policy held by the life assured with other company. Being aggrieved by the repudiation, the respondent in the said case filed a consumer complaint which was dismissed on the ground that there was non-disclosure of the fact that the insured had held a previous policy in the proposal form filled up by the proposer. The appeal filed by the respondent was, however, allowed based on a decision of the NCDRC in Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rayani Ramanjaneyulu, 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 525 :

38. Placing reliance on Rekhaben, the NCDRC observed that Sahara India had been overruled in Rekhaben and therefore consumer complaint was dismissed. We find that the approach of the NCDRC is erroneous for the following reasons:

i) Firstly, the NCDRC has failed to note that the details of the policies extracted in the table above do not state as in whose name the said policies were issued. On perusal of the dates of birth declared in the policies, it is not clear as to whose dates of birth are stated therein.

49. Before the NCDRC, the respondent again provided the aforesaid tabulation of policies of the insured-deceased. The respondents in their affidavit stated that the insured-deceased had taken multiple insurance policies before taking the policy from them. The NCDRC however accepted the averment of the respondents, without demanding corroborative documentary evidence in support of the said fact. The NCDRC, on the contrary, also held that the fact about multiple policies was not dealt with by the appellant in her complaint or evidence affidavit and this therefore proved that the insured had indeed taken the policies from multiple companies as claimed by the respondents.