MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Insurance Claim Cannot be Repudiated on Mere Allegation of Non-Disclosure of Previous Policies: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that an insurance claim cannot be repudiated merely on the allegation of non-disclosure of previous insurance policies, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support such a claim. This judgment was delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih on April 10, 2024.

The Supreme Court overturned the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had supported the repudiation of Mahakali Sujatha’s insurance claim by Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited. The issue centered on the alleged suppression of information regarding previous insurance policies by the deceased insured.

The appellant, Mahakali Sujatha, approached the apex court after the NCDRC upheld the insurance company’s decision to repudiate her claim based on alleged non-disclosure of pre-existing insurance policies held by her late father. The insurance company argued that this suppression of material fact justified their decision to repudiate the claim.

Ambiguity in Insurance Proposal Forms: The Court observed that the queries in the insurance proposal forms were ambiguous, making it unclear whether the insured was required to disclose previous policies. This led to the application of the contra proferentem rule, favoring the interpretation against the insurer.

Burden of Proof: The Supreme Court noted that the burden of proof lies on the insurer to demonstrate the allegations of non-disclosure. The Court found that the insurance company failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate their claim of existing policies, merely providing a tabulation of information without corroboration.

Applicability of Section 45 of the Insurance Act: The Court determined that under Section 45, the insurer had not proven that the insured had fraudulently given false information regarding pre-existing policies.

Repudiation of Insurance Claim: The Court concluded that the repudiation was unjustified due to the lack of adequate evidence supporting the insurance company’s claim.

Decision: The Supreme Court directed the insurance company to pay the appellant the claimed amounts under both insurance policies with interest, citing the lack of evidence to support the company’s decision to repudiate the claim based on non-disclosure.

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024

Mahakali Sujatha vs. The Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited & Another

 

Latest Legal News