Page 139 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 139

fore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has discharged its onus
to prove that the insured had committed suicide - Thus, in our

view, even the repudiation is not justified. ...105
IRDA (Policy Holders Interests) Regulations, 2002, Regulation 8(3) –

Insurance company should have been decided by the opposite

party Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of 30 days and not more than 6
months i.e. latest by March, 2012 - Thus, it was an utter disre-

gard of the statutory provisions; the opposite party nos. 1 and 2

repudiated the claim on 19.3.2013, which took 2 years and three
months to take decision in this matter - The basic issue involved

in the present matter is whether the insured, suffered from any
kidney disease etc. prior to submitting the proposal form for ob-

taining the policy and whether there has been any concealment of
any material fact on his part - A perusal of the impugned order

reveals that although the State Commission identified the crucial

issue as stated above but they have not given any finding on the
same, rather the State Commission passed their judgment based

on the IRDA Regulations 2002 only, saying that the insurance
company had indulged in deficiency in service in not deciding the

claim within the time laid down in the Regulations - It was the
duty of the State Commission to have examined the entire evi-

dence on record and then give a clear-cut finding on the question,

whether there was any impersonation or fraud committed by the
insured in any manner. ...37

IRDA (Treatment Of Discontinued Link Insurance Policies) Regulations

2010 - Whether the surrender value of the policy could be given

INDEX