TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: 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