Complainant/respondent’s wife had taken three policies –two for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,02,000 on 28.03.2000 and the third policy for Rs.50,000/- on 28.11.2001. She died due to cardiac failure on 19.10.2002. Respondent being the nominee filed the claim with the petitioner insurance company which settled the first two polices but repudiated the claim under the third policy on the ground that while making the proposal for the said policy, the deceased had failed to -2- disclose about her second policy, though she had declared about the first policy. It was stated that the claim preferred by the respondent was liable to be repudiated on the ground that the insured suppressed the fact regarding the taking of the second policy. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to disburse the assured sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 31.03.2008 till the date of payment and Rs.1,000/- by way of costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The State Commission took the view that as per Circular issued by the petitioner, a married woman with no income of her own could take the life insurance policy upto Rs.10 Lacs or equivalent to the husband’s insurance policies whichever is less. The State Commission in its order has observed that counsel for the petitioner -3- could not state whether the extent of policy amount taken by the respondent/complainant had been disclosed as to hold that by taking the 3rd policy the deceased wife had exceeded her husband policy amount. Counsel for the petitioner has now pointed out that the deceased in the proposal form had mentioned about 4 polices taken by the respondent totaling the sum of Rs.1,70,000/-. It is also pointed out by him that this point was born out from the written submissions filed by the petitioner before the State Commission. It is true that the deceased in the proposal form had mentioned about the four policies taken by her husband totaling to Rs.1,70,000/-. It is also true that the total amount for which the policy had been taken by the deceased/insured exceeded the respondent’s policy amount. The deceased insured was not made aware of the Circular issued by the petitioner. The claim of the respondent was repudiated on the ground that the insured had failed to disclose about her taking of the second policy. It is true that the deceased did not disclose -4- regarding the taking of the second policy. The records of Life Insurance Corporation are computerized. Had the Life Insurance Corporation taken the trouble of opening of web page of the first policy, it would have known that the deceased had taken the second policy as well. The deceased had disclosed about taking of second policy by her. On such technicality the claim of the respondent could not have been repudiated. Dismissed. | 
