Page 56 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 56

―Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Asha Goel (Smt.) & Anr. [(2001) 2
SCC 160]‖, ―Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 8
SCC 316]‖, ―United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M.K.J. Corporation [(1996) 6 SCC
428]‖ in support of his arguments. Referring to Section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938,
the learned counsel says that the suppression of material information even after the
expiry of two years of taking the policy could not be condoned.

7. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful con-
sideration to the arguments advanced before me.

8. The first issue for consideration in the matter is with regard to the delay in
filing the appeal in question. There is a delay of 224 days in filing the appeal. The
appellant has not been able to advance any cogent and convincing reason in the appli-
cation for condonation of delay or during arguments before this Commission which
may justify the condonation of such delay. Simply saying that time was spent in col-
lecting papers from Chandigarh and contacting a counsel at Delhi, does not provide
satisfactory explanation for condonation of such delay. There is no valid ground
made out, therefore, for condonation of delay of 224 days and appeal deserves to be
dismissed on this ground alone.

9. The next issue that merits consideration is whether there has been suppres-
sion of material information from the Insurance Company at the time of filling the
proposal form by the deceased insured. As stated earlier, a perusal of the proposal
form for life insurance indicates that against clause 14 with the title, ―Have you ever
been treated or currently under treatment for any of the following conditions‖, the
insured had given answers as, ―No‖ to all the questions. From the material available
on record, however, it is clear that the insured did obtain medical treatment and for
that purpose, he was also admitted in the Kidney Hospital. It was, therefore, the duty
of the insured to make a truthful disclosure about his previous or current health condi-
tion at the time of filling the proposal form. The medical notes recorded by the Kid-
ney Hospital on 08.07.2009 bring out clearly that the insured was suffering from dia-
betes mellitus for 23 years and hypertension for the last 4 – 5 years and that he was
diagnosed for CRF in the year 2006. It goes without saying therefore, that the insured
should have faithfully disclosed information about all these diseases, while filling the
proposal form.

10. Coming to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant
about the Acute Renal Failure (ARF) versus the Chronic Renal Failure (CRF), the
learned counsel has tried to explain that the deceased was suffering from ARF and not
CRF and that the ARF was a reversible phenomena. Even if this contention of the
learned counsel of the complainant is believed, it is clearly made out that the factum
of taking treatment for ARF etc. should have been disclosed by the complainant‘s
husband while filling the proposal form, in the absence of which, it has to be pre-
sumed that there was concealment of information from the Insurance Company on his
part.

INDEX