Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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