BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.623

.

Between                                           

1.  Assistant General Manager,
General Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Regd.Off: 3-6-478, Anand Estate
III Floor, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar
Hyderabad-29

2.  The Regional Manager
Shriram Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
4^th

Kancharla Padmavathi W/o Srinivas Rao
R/o Maadala Village, Muppalla Mandal
Guntur District.

                                               Counsel for the Appellants            

Counsel for the Respondent

 QUORUM:       SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

1.    `2,25,000 

2.    `30,000/- on 28.09.2009 and obtained insurance policy bearing number LN100900137836 for the sum assured of`2,25,000/-. The insurance policy commenced from 28.09.2009 and the insured died on 05.03.2010 and after the death of the insured, the respondent submitted claim form and relevant documents. The first appellant informed the respondent through its letter dated 12.07.2010 that her claim was repudiated on the premise that the insured suffered from diabetes, urinary infection and kidney failure at the time of submitting the proposal.

3.                        

4.      

5.    

6.            

7.    

8.    

 9.     

10.           

11.              

12.               

13.                  

14.             

“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.”

 15.             In view of foregoing discussion, this Commission is of the view that finding recorded by the District Forum that the appellants had not established concealment material fact as regards to his health by the insured is not sustainable and the order of the District Forum, as such is liable to be set aside. 

16.              

                                                                                                                                      కె.ఎం.కె*