Wife denied insurance claim for withholding vital info
7 Oct 2014 12:55 AM GMT
The apex consumer commission has denied insurance claim to the wife of a man, who died in 1999, noting that he had withheld material information at the time of taking the policy.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice DK Jain, denied the insurance claim while setting aside the order passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in which the state commission had asked the insurance company to pay Rs 1.03 lakh to Neelam Sharma, a resident of Ajmer in Rajastan.
‘We are of opinion that the answers given by insured in proposal form were untrue to his knowledge. There was clear suppression of material facts in regard to the health of the insured,’ the NCDRC bench said.
It added that it was not for insurer Krishanavtar Sharma, to determine whether information sought
for in questionnaire was material for the purpose of the two policies.
‘At any rate, the statements made in the proposal form were untrue and incorrect. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent,’ it said.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice DK Jain, denied the insurance claim while setting aside the order passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in which the state commission had asked the insurance company to pay Rs 1.03 lakh to Neelam Sharma, a resident of Ajmer in Rajastan.
‘We are of opinion that the answers given by insured in proposal form were untrue to his knowledge. There was clear suppression of material facts in regard to the health of the insured,’ the NCDRC bench said.
It added that it was not for insurer Krishanavtar Sharma, to determine whether information sought
for in questionnaire was material for the purpose of the two policies.
‘At any rate, the statements made in the proposal form were untrue and incorrect. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent,’ it said.
Next Story
