Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Duty of Full Disclosure Requires that No Information of Substance or of Interest to the Insurer be Omitted or Concealed: NCDRC Overturns State Commission’s Ruling on Insurance Claim

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal decision, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has set aside the Karnataka State Consumer Commission’s order compelling Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. To pay ₹30,00,000 along with interest for a claim previously dismissed due to non-disclosure of a pre-existing condition.

The appeal was centered on the fundamental insurance principle of ‘Uberrima Fides’ (utmost good faith), which obligates full and honest disclosure of all relevant facts by the insured at the time of policy inception.

The deceased, insured under a policy by Aviva Life Insurance, had concealed his ongoing treatment for Chronic Kidney Disease and hemodialysis at the time of applying for the insurance. The State Commission had initially ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the insurance company to pay the policy sum and interest, despite the insurance company’s argument of breach of the duty of disclosure.

The NCDRC thoroughly reviewed legal precedents and the obligations of the insured under the doctrine of utmost good faith. The court emphasized several key rulings that supported the insurer’s position to repudiate the claim when there is material non-disclosure by the insured.

P C Chacko & Anr. Vs. Chairman, LIC of India & Ors. – Highlighted the essence of insurance contracts being contracts of utmost good faith.

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod – Reinforced the insurer’s right to reject claims if critical information that could influence the underwriting decision is withheld.

“The investigations of the respondent have revealed facts which were admittedly not disclosed at the time of the DLA’s proposal for the policy. These have not been controverted by the appellant.”

The NCDRC concluded that the insured’s failure to disclose crucial health information breached the contract’s trust, warranting the repudiation of the claim. Thus, the appeal by Aviva Life Insurance was allowed, reversing the State Commission’s earlier order.

Date of Decision: 8th April 2024

AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. INDIA LTD. VS KARIYAPPA

Latest Legal News