Dated: 30.05.2023
O R D E R
BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
- This Appeal filed by OP under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aggrieved by an order dated 24.08.2021, passed in CC/19/2019 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore (herein after referred as District Commission and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint)
- Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.
- Respondent/Complainant filed Consumer Complaint before the Commission below alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP/appellant for repudiating her claim only on the technical ground that the purchaser of the policy (Husband of complainant) did not reveal any information about the previous policies held by them. Upon service of notice, OP appeared through learned counsel and contested the matter. After enquiry, Commission below recorded findings in favour of complainant and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of complaint till date of payment and further awarded some amount of cost and compensation. It is this order being assailed in this appeal contending that Commission below has failed to examine the materials on record since husband of complainant had not disclosed any information about the other policies purchased by him during his life time, thereby OP/appellant has rightly invoked Section 45 of Insurance Act and has repudiated the claim, has some considerable force. On perusal of terms and conditions of the policies in question could see that the purchaser must reveal all information about any previous polices held by him. Thus if the insured was disclosed as to his existing policies obtained, OP would not have issued the insurance policies in question as it amounts over insurance or could have called for submission of special medical reports at the proposal stage. Therefore, rejecting the claim on the ground of not disclosing of existing policies by the OP/appellant has to be justified. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer herein the decision reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 2039, wherein held –
…. Suppression of material fact, Non-disclosure of earlier cover for life insurance by insured in proposal form and material misrepresentation or concealment would influence decision of prudent insurer to undertake risk, under such circumstance the insurer entitled to repudiate claim under policy.
Further in case of Satwant Kaur Sandur v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in IV (2009) CPJ 8 (SC), wherein held –
…. Nonetheless, it is a contract of insurance falling in the category of contract ‘Uberrimate Fidie’ meaning, a contract of utmost good faith, on the part of the assured. Thus, it needs little emphasis that when an information on a specific aspect is asked for in the proposal form, an assured is under a solemn obligation to make a true and full disclosure of the information on the subject which is within his knowledge.
7. It is therefore, we are of the view that, Commission below has erred in appreciating materials on record especially the terms and condition of the policies and has passed the impugned order, which in our view does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal. Accordingly, Commission proceed to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by Commission below dated 24.08.2021 in CC/19/2019. Accordingly, CC/19/2019 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. The Amount in deposit is directed refund to appellant with proper identification by his advocate.
9. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady MemberJudicial MemberPresident
*GGH*
