Page 21 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 21

the deceased insured wherein she inter-alia stated that her husband was a habitual
drinker even before her marriage. The statement recorded on 19.9.2005 would show
that the marriage happened about five years ago, meaning thereby it happened some-
time in the year 2010. Therefore, the deceased insured obviously made a false state-
ment in the proposal form when he denied consuming liquor.
8. The record from National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences
Bangalore would show that the deceased had sustained injury of LS spine and had
taken treatment for the said injury in the aforesaid hospital. Therefore, it is obvious
that a false answer was given by him in the proposal form when he denied having
been admitted to any hospital for treatment or operation.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to addi-
tional affidavit filed by the petitioner Corporation. In the said affidavit, it is stated
that as per the new business underwriting guidelines which were being followed dur-
ing the relevant period, in the case of an occasional consumer consuming alcohol, the
would have obtained physicians report, besides investigations such as SGOT, SGPT
and GGTP. All the aforesaid investigations pertain to the state of health of the liver.
Had the petitioner disclosed in the proposal form that he had been taking liquor he
would have been subjected to physical examination by a physician and would also
have been investigated for ascertaining the state of his liver by undergoing investiga-
tions such as SGOT, SGTP and GGTP. It is therefore evident that the deceased had
made a material concealment from the petitioner Corporation with respect to the state
of his health which influenced advantage of the insurer on the question as to whether
the proposal for insurance should be accepted or not. On this ground also, the repu-
diation of the claim was fully justified.
10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained
and the same are therefore set aside. The amount if any, deposited by the petitioner
shall be refunded to it, along with interest accrued on that amount.

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

INDEX