IA no. 20470 of 2018 This is an application filed by the respondent for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application the delay is condoned. FA no. 1963 of 2018 . Late Ramkaran Sharma father of the complainant/ appellant had obtained an insurance policy from the respondent on 09.06.2014. He having died on 19.08.2015, a claim was lodged by the complainant for payment of the benefits available under the policy taken by his father. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 03.03.2016 which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: In section IV – Details of Existing/ Simultaneously Applied insurance Cover on the life to be assured of the proposal form the life assured has answered to various questions which are reproduced below: 52. Have you concurrently/simultaneously applied for any life, health insurance cover with us or any other life, health insurance company which is still under consideration? – Answer is NO. 54. Please provide details of existing insurance cover on your life in the below table. If you do not have any existing insurance on your life, please mention ‘NIL” in sum assured column below. Please include any keyman/ keyperson, partnership cover as well? Answer is Yes 4 Lakh with Aviva Life Insurance. 69. Are your currently taking any medication or drugs either prescribed or not prescribed by doctor? Answer is NO. 71. Have your been absent from work for more than 10 days in the last two year due to health reasons? Answer is NO. We hold indisputable proof to show that Life Assured had not disclosed the correct information about the previous insurance covers with other insurance companies. Had the life assured disclose correct details of previous insurance coverage, and long medical leave record the same would have influenced our decision in issuance of the policy. In this case, since the life assured had died on 19.08.2015 and the policy commencement date is 09.06.2014 the claim is being repudiated within a period of 3 years from the policy commencement date, the section 45 of the Insurance Act is not attracted. Important – We would like to inform you that the name of our company has changed from ‘ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited’ to ‘Exide Life Insurance Company Limited’. This change of name has no impact on the operations of the company. The company will continue to honour its commitments and obligations under the insurance policy (s) issued in the name of ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited”. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of Consumer Complaint. 2. No reply to the Consumer Complaint was filed by the respondent. 3. The State Commission vide its order dated 27.09.2018 dismissed the Consumer Complaint on the grounds that while submitting the proposal the deceased insured had disclosed only one policy taken by him from Aviva Life Insurance, whereas he had concealed three insurance policies which he had taken from the LIC of India and were in force at that time. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission the appellant is before this Commission by way of this appeal. 4. A perusal of the proposal form would show that while responding to the clause 4 in Section IV, the complainant was required to disclose all the insurance covers taken by him on his life. While replying to clause 52, he was required to disclose the applications submitted by him for grant of insurance covers on his life or his own health. The insured while responding in negative to clause 52 disclosed only one insurance policy while responding to clause 54 of the proposal. He thus concealed three insurance policies which had admittedly taken from the LIC of India and which were in force at the time the proposal was submitted. 5. The declaration given by the insured while applying for the insurance policy to the extent it is relevant reads as under: I/we declare that the answers and statements made by me/ us in this proposal form have been made after fully understanding features of the policy, the nature of questions and the nature of questions and the importance of disclosing all material information; I/we further declare on my behalf and on behalf of all person to be insured, that the above statements, answers/ and or particulars given by me are true and complete in all respects to the best of my knowledge and have not withheld or suppressed any material fact and that I we am/are authorised to propose on behalf of these other persons; I/we understand that the information provided by me will form the basis of the insurance policy, is subject to the Board approved underwriting policy of the insurance company and that the policy will come into force only after full receipt of the premium chargeable; I/we have been explained the policy/ rider terms and conditions (if rider is opted) and I/we fully understand the benefits and risks associated with it. I/ we have made no statement/s to the Company, its advisor or to any person associated with the company, which in any way modifies/ contradicts the answers/ statements in this proposal form.
6. It is thus evident that the insured had concealed the three policies which had taken from the LIC of India and which were in force at the time of the proposal form was submitted. He had also made a false declaration while submitting the said proposal. 7. The issue involved in the appeal recently came up consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and vs Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod in Civil Appeal no. 4261 of 2019 (arising out of SLP © no. 14312 of 2015) decided on 24.04.2019. In Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod (Supra) the insured while submitting the proposal to obtain the insurance cover from the appellant – Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., had suppressed the information with respect to his previous insurance policy taken by him. The District Forum having dismissed the Consumer Complaint on account of the aforesaid concealment, the complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission allowed the Consumer Complaint and the decision of the State Commission was affirmed by this Commission. Allowing the appeal and dismissing the Consumer Complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held as under: Materiality from the insured’s perspective is a relevant factor in determining whether the insurance company should be able to cancel the policy arising out of the fault of the insured. Whether a question concealed is or is it not material is a question of fact. As this Court held in Satwant Kaur (supra): “Any fact which goes to the root of the contract of insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be ―material.” Materiality of a fact also depends on the surrounding circumstances and the nature of information sought by the insurer. It covers a failure to disclose vital information which the insurer requires in order to determine firstly, whether or not to assume the risk of insurance, and secondly, if it does accept the risk, upon what terms it should do so. The insurer is better equipped to determine the limits of risk-taking as it deals with the exercise of assessments on a day-to-day basis. In a contract of insurance, any fact which would influence the mind of a prudent insurer in deciding whether to accept or not accept the risk is a material fact. If the proposer has knowledge of such fact, she or he is obliged to disclose it particularly while answering questions in the proposal form. An inaccurate answer will entitle the insurer to repudiate because there is a presumption that information sought in the proposal form is material for the purpose of entering into a contract of insurance. 27 In the present case, the insurer had sought information with respect to previous insurance policies obtained by the assured. The duty of full disclosure required that no information of substance or of interest to the insurer be omitted or concealed. Whether or not the insurer would have issued a life insurance cover despite the earlier cover of insurance is a decision which was required to be taken by the insurer after duly considering all relevant facts and circumstances. The disclosure of the earlier cover was material to an assessment of the risk which was being undertaken by the insurer. Prior to undertaking the risk, this information could potentially allow the insurer to question as to why the insured had in such a short span of time obtained two different life insurance policies. Such a fact is sufficient to put the insurer to enquiry. 2129 We are not impressed with the submission that the proposer was unaware of the contents of the form that he was required to fill up or that in assigning such a response to a third party, he was absolved of the consequence of appending his signatures to the proposal. The proposer duly appended his signature to the proposal form and the grant of the insurance cover was on the basis of the statements contained in the proposal form. Barely two months before the contract of insurance was entered into with the appellant, the insured had obtained another insurance cover for his life in the sum of Rs 11 lakhs. We are of the view that the failure of the insured to disclose the policy of insurance obtained earlier in the proposal form entitled the insurer to repudiate the claim under the policy. 31 Finally, the argument of the respondent that the signatures of the assured on the form were taken without explaining the details cannot be accepted. A similar argument was correctly rejected in a decision of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in VK Srinivasa Setty v Messers Premier Life and General Insurance Co Ltd where it was held: Now it is clear that a person who affixes his signature to a proposal which contains a statement which is not true, cannot ordinarily escape from the consequence arising therefrom by pleading that he chose to sign the proposal containing such statement without either reading or understanding it. That is because, in filling up the proposal form, the agent normally, ceases to act as agent of the insurer but becomes the agent of the insured and no agent can be assumed to have authority from the insurer to write the answers in the proposal form. If an agent nevertheless does that, he becomes merely the amanuensis of the insured, and his knowledge of the untruth or inaccuracy of any statement contained in the form of proposal does not become the knowledge of the insurer. Further, apart from any question of imputed knowledge, the insured by signing that proposal adopts those answers and makes them his own and that would clearly be so, whether the insured signed the proposal without reading or understanding it, it being irrelevant to consider how the inaccuracy arose if he has contracted, as the plaintiff has done in this case that his written answers shall be accurate.‖ 32 For the reasons which we have adduced, we are of the view that the SCDRC was in error in reversing the judgment of the District Forum. The NCDRC has similarly erred in affirming the view of the SCDRC. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the NCDRC dated 20 February 2015. The consumer complaint filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed”. 21 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the value of the insurance policy taken from the LIC was Rs.2,30,000/- in aggregate, and the said policy had been taken in 1988, 2000 and 2004. That, however, would be of no consequence, since the insured had an obligation to disclose all the policies obtained by him irrespective of the sum insured or the time at which the said policies was taken. 9. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed. | 
