BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.195
Between
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Central Processing Centre, 2nd CBD Belapur, Navi Mumba-614
1. Jade Nagalaxmi W/o late Narendra Kumar
2. Jade Venkatesh S/o late Narendra Kumar
3. Jade Manisha D/o late Narendra Kumar
4. Jade Veetabai W/o Ramachnder Rao
All are R/o Flat No.G-4, Bhargavi Homes
Meerbagh Colony, Nalgonda Town & Dist
5. The Branch Manager
State Bank of Hyderabad
Prakasham Bazar Branch
Nalgonda Dist.
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
1. `5 lakh with interest @ 12% per annum and costs.
2. `5,00,000/- under loan account bearing number 62093841013 and in favour of the first respondent’ husband and the appellant issued insurance cover under Master Policy No.83001000507 in favour of the respondent no.5 and individual insurance policies to the loan account holders who included the husband of the respondent no.1. The risk cover tapers down as the EMIs get paid.`4,80,175/- and to the extent of the same amount is the ambit of risk cover on the date of his death.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. His past history is noted “not significant”.
15.
16.
17.
i. Have you consulted any doctor for surgical operation or have been hospitalized for any disorder other than minor cough, cold or flu during the last 5 years,?
iv.
18. A combined reading of clause 8(i) and (iv) of the membership form would make it clear that it is the solemn obligation of the insured to disclose whether he was treated for cancer or he was told that he was suffering from cancer, tumor or growth and also
19. The decision to repudiate the claim was taken by the respondent-insurance company based on the medical record . The appellant could not show how the order under appeal could be said to suffer from any infirmity.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“The purpose for taking a policy of insurance is not, in our opinion, very material. It may serve the purpose of social security but then the same should not be obtained with a fraudulent act by the insured. Proposal can be repudiated if a fraudulent act is discovered. The proposer must show that his intention was. It must appear from the face of the record. In a case of this nature it was not necessary for the insurer to establish that the suppression was fraudulently made by the policy holder or that he must have been aware at the time of making the statement that the same was false or that the fact was suppressed which was material to disclose. A deliberate wrong answer which has a great bearing on the contract of insurance, if discovered may lead to the policy being vitiated in law.”
21.
22.
కె.ఎం.కె*
