Page 98 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 98

party/insurance company amounts to deficiency of service. In the above circum-
stances, the order of the Ld. forum in dismissing the complaint of the complainant
is not proper and is warranted to be interfered, appeal is admitted and the under-
mentioned order is being passed.”
8. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that in the proposal
form submitted by the insured, the question under 8.1 of the proposal form as to
whether the life assured was holding any other life insurance policy, he responded
with an answer ―NO‖. After the death of the insured, the Petitioner appointed CRP
Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., for investigating the case and they filed their report on
16.02.2010 stating that the insured had suppressed several other insurance policies
taken previously by him.
9. Learned counsel filed his written submissions stating that the insured had
the following policies in his name:
―Particulars AVIVA RLIC BHARTI AXA ING
Policy No. ALL-1940-976 1774-163 5000-837-491 1032-055
Proposal Date 27.03.2008 19.03.2008 07.03.2008 10.03.2008
Sum Assured 15,00,000 8,00,000 7,50,000 5,00,000
Annual income 2,00,000 72,000 1,60,000 60,000
of Prosper
Investigation Pending Intimation not Claim settled Paid‖
Status received and paid
As the suppression regarding the aforementioned insurance policies amounts to
material non-disclosure under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, he contended that the
repudiation was justified. He relied on the judgements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court
in P.C. Chako Vs. Life insurance Corporation, (2008) 1 SCC 321 and in LIC Vs.
Ahsa Goel, (2001) 1 SCC 120, in which the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has laid down
that given the scope of Section 45, it is immaterial as to whether the insured had
knowledge of the existence of the material fact concealed or not; the suppression it-
self is material.
10. The Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Agent had cate-
gorically accepted that he had not asked the insured any question relating to other
insurance policies as these questions were relevant only with respect to medi-claim
related insurance policies. The learned counsel relied on the 5 Member Bench judge-
ment of this Commission in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Dashrathlal Jethabhai Patel, II (1996) CPJ 77 (NC) and in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Munir Shah, III (2002)CPJ 336 (NC). He further contended that An-
nexure P-6 relied upon by the Insurance Company was not a part of the record either
before the District Forum or the State Commission and in fact it was produced by the
Insurance Company for the first time and as such this document cannot be relied
upon. He vehemently argued that the claim was repudiated on 24.02.2010 and the
alleged e-mails received from the other insurance companies were dated in the
months of March and April. The allegation of the insurer is not substantiated by affi-
davits of the authorised officials of the said insurance companies confirming the con-
tent of the e-mails. He further contended that the Policy terms and conditions do not
specifically stipulate any rule or condition for disclosure of information regarding

INDEX