Page 5 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 5

mere delay in not accepting proposal cannot construe as acceptance and further ob-
served that repudiation was justified as there was no concluded contract between de-
ceased and insurer at the time of death.
Same view has been taken in II (2010) CPJ 231 (NC) –LIC Vs. Gita Sharma and II
(1994) CPJ 62 (NC) – Branch Officer, LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Kanchanben H. Shah &
Ors. In absence of concluded contract, complainants are not entitled to get alleged sum
assured and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Regulations made by IRDA, directing Insurance Co. to process proposal and
communicate its decision in a period of not exceeding 15 days.
NCDRC in F.A. No. 560 of 2012 – SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D. Srinivas &
Ors. observed that these Regulations had no significance as they were not proved by
both the Houses of Parliament and non-compliance of 15 days period for processing of
proposal by Insurance Co. will not come in the way of Insurance Co. to repudiate in-
rd
surance claim and in the light of judgment of 3 Member, repudiation of claim of com-
plainant by insurer was upheld.
Referred in
Referred in Life Insurance Corporation Of India v. Shubhra Bhambri. (F.A. 647 of
2015)

Concealment of earlier polices:
In CEO, Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs. Rayani Rama-
yanjneyulu in SLP(c) No. 30740 of 2014 dated 21.11.2014 the Hon‘ble Supreme Court
has reconfirmed that for any omission or commission of an Insurance Agent, the in-
sured or his or her LRs cannot be made to suffer, The main question involved in Sahara
India case (Supra) was that the insured did not mention about the previous insurance
policies. The Hon‘ble Apex Court upheld the view of this commission that by no
stretch of imagination the information about any previous insurance policies could be
held to be material. The Court has observed that it was difficult to fathom as to why
these facts would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing premium or
determining the cover or whether he would like to take the risk. There appears to be a
mistake committed by the Agent and repudiation on this ground alone smacks of mala-
fide intention on the part of the OP.
This stand has been reiterated by NCDRC in Smt. Sulochna Indukar Vs. the Life
Insurance Corporation of India in R.P. No. 587 of 2015 dated 11.09.2015, wherein the
repudiation on similar grounds, viz. that the insured had suppressed information re-
garding his previous insurance policies, has been held to be bad.
Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 148 of 2008 dated 20.05.2015 in Neeta-
ben Mukund Shah and Ors. Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance company Limited and Ors., in
which case the correct income of the insured was suppressed.
Referred in
Aviva lic v. Rekhaben Ramjibhai Parmar

INDEX