Page 16 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 16

privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact
and his believing the contrary.(Also see: Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental In-
surance Co. Ltd., II (2000)SLT 323 = I(2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=(2000)2 SCC 734).

17. The term ―material fact‖ is not defined in the Act and, therefore, it has
been understood and explained by the courts in general terms to mean as any fact
which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or
determining whether he would like to accept the risk. Any fact which goes to the
root of the Contract of Insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be
―material‖.
18. As stated in Pollock and Mulla‘s Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts,
any fact the knowledge or ignorance of which would materially influence an insurer
in making the contract or in estimating the degree and character of risks in fixing the
rate of premium is a material fact”.
11. The facts of the above cited case are fully applicable to the facts of the pre-
sent case as in this case, undisputedly the deceased—insured had suppressed the ma-
terial facts regarding his health from the Respondent and did not mention these facts
in the proposal form while taking the insurance policy that he had been suffering
from Thalassemia since childhood and had been taking treatment for that disease prior
to the insurance policy. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that the deceased—
insured, Sh. Sachin Chhabra, had suppressed the material facts from the Respondent
while taking the insurance policy in question.
12. In view of the above discussion, I find that no jurisdictional or legal error has
been shown in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers
under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The order of the State
Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or
erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, being devoid of any
merit, the Revision Petition is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the Consumer Com-
plaint filed by the Petitioner/Complaint before the District Forum also stand dis-
missed.
13. No order as to cost.

......................
REKHA GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER

INDEX