Page 126 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 126

submitted by him. The insurer might also have asked him to undergo additional in-
vestigations in order to verify the state of his health and the risk to his life on account
of the surgery he had undergone in April 2005. It could also have asked for a higher
premium, on account of the insured having undergone the aforesaid surgery. Since
the insured withheld the aforesaid material fact from the insurer while applying for
the insurance policy, the insurer was fully justified in rejecting the claim on account
of the aforesaid concealment. The view taken by the State Commission, relying pri-
marily on the decisions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in P.C. Chacko and another
Vs. Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others 2016 (1) CPR 451
S.C. and Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs Asha Goel (Smt.) and
another; 2001 SCC 160, cannot be faulted with.
4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby dismissed
with no order as to costs.

......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

INDEX