Page 99 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 99

other policies taken by the insured or any implications thereof and therefore, such a
plea cannot, now be taken in a revision petition.
11. The brief point that falls for consideration in this Revision Petition is
whether the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground
that the insured had suppressed the holding of other policies which he had allegedly
taken from other insurance companies, especially in the light of the stand of their
own Agent‘s assertion that he himself had filled the Proposal Form and had never
sought for any information from the insured about other insurance policies.
12. The Learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied on the decision of
this Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 148 of 2008 dated 20.05.2015 in
Neetaben Mukund Shah and Ors. Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance company Limited
and Ors., in which case the correct income of the insured was suppressed. He vehe-
mently argued that the State Commission did not follow Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs
New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 316, in which the Hon‘ble
Apex Court has held that the insured was required to disclose all material facts cor-
rectly in the Proposal Form as Insurance is a Contract between the two parties based
on the principal of uberrimae fidei.
13. In the present case the facts are different as it was not the ‗health condition‘
or the ‗income‘ which was suppressed but rather it is the allegation of the insurer that
the insured had concealed the factum of taking of other insurance policies.
14. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the statement filed by the Insurance
Company along with the Written Submissions, was admittedly not a part of the record
before the fora below. There was a specific pleading by the Complainant in her Com-
plaint before the District Forum, that insured was not questioned by the Agent with
respect to other policies. At the cost of repetition, the relevant portion of the Written
Version filed by the Agent before the District Forum is reproduced as under:
“I have filled up the proposal form, which is duly signed by the insured…. I
have filled up the proposal form as answered by the insured for the asked ques-
tions. Generally in the cases of medi-claim related insurance policy holders‟/ as-
sured‟s case we ask queries pertaining to other insurance policies. I did not ask
such questions from the insured”,
It is also pertinent to note that the entire Proposal Form shows that it was filled in
English but was signed in Gujarati. It is further significant to note that the e-mails and
the correspondence being relied upon by the insurer are all subsequent to the letter of
repudiation dated 24.02.2010.
15. In CEO, Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs.
Rayani Ramayanjneyulu 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 insured 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

INDEX