MV Act | Blanket Ban on Bike Taxis Unconstitutional; Motorcycles are ‘Contract Carriages’: Karnataka High Court Labourer Travelling in Tractor-Trolley for Agricultural Work Not a Gratuitous Passenger – Insurer Liable: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Appeal of Oriental Insurance Wife Cannot Claim Maintenance After Her Own Family Cripples Husband’s Earning Capacity: Allahabad High Court FIR is Not an Encyclopedia, Abusive Conduct Deserves Scrutiny: Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash FIR Against Former Politician Over Alleged Abuse of Woman Officer Kendriya Vidyalaya Parent Associations Can't Occupy School Premises or Run Buses Without Compliance With KVS Education Code: Kerala High Court Landowners Under Highway Act Cannot Be Left Remediless: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Challenges Withdrawn Due to Unconstitutional Ruling Probation Does Not Erase Conviction: Misconduct Remains Misconduct: Supreme Court Rejects Shielding Dismissed Employee Despite Probation Rigid Procedural Compliance Can’t Override Substantial Justice: Supreme Court Restores Appeal Dismissed for Technical Lapse Consent of Minor is No Consent in the Eye of Law: Allahabad High Court Declines to Quash Rape Case Once Impleaded, Insurer Can Challenge Compensation On All Grounds: Supreme Court Restores Insurance Company’s Right to Contest Quantum in Motor Accident Case Where Dispute is Personal and Peace is Restored, Law Must Not Be Dragged Further: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Neighbourhood Quarrel CBI Not The Only Gatekeeper Of Corruption Probes Against Central Employees: Supreme Court Affirms Power Of State ACBs Dismissal of JCO Automatically Forfeits Pension — No Separate Order Required: Supreme Court Satisfaction of Detaining Authority Must Be Based on Cogent Material; Mere Ipse Dixit Can't Sustain Detention: Supreme Court Intention to Humiliate on Account of Caste Is Essential Under SCST Act: Supreme Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Under PC Act: Supreme Court Upholds Lokayukta's Power Status Quo Ante Is a Mandatory Direction, Cannot Be Granted Lightly Without Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Interim Order Presumption Under Section 113-B Evidence Act Not Attracted Without Proof Of Cruelty Soon Before Death: Bombay High Court Affirms Acquittal

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