Justice for Grieving Mother: NCDRC Orders Bajaj Allianz to Pay ₹4.28 Lakh in Insurance Dispute! 💸⚖️

 

In a landmark ruling that brings hope to policyholders, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has granted Vasantiben Dafda the sum of ₹4.28 lakh, ending her battle for justice after her son’s tragic death. The case highlights the need for insurers to provide strong evidence when rejecting claims. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance had earlier denied the claim following allegations of non-disclosure of health details by Vasantiben's late son, but the NCDRC ruled in her favor, reinstating the claim and offering relief after years of emotional turmoil.

💔 The Tragic Loss That Led to the Dispute

In 2008, Vasantiben’s son, Rajubhai Dafda, took out a life insurance policy with Bajaj Allianz for ₹4.08 lakh. Sadly, after the policy lapsed in 2011 due to missed payments, it was revived when Rajubhai submitted a health declaration form. In November 2012, Rajubhai unexpectedly passed away due to illness.

Vasantiben, the nominee, filed a claim for the policy amount, but Bajaj Allianz rejected the request, offering just ₹20,618 as the fund value instead. The insurer claimed Rajubhai had failed to disclose a history of heavy alcohol consumption, citing hospital records, and declared the policy void.

💼 Bajaj Allianz’s Defense: Alleged Non-Disclosure of Alcohol Habit

Bajaj Allianz contended that Rajubhai’s long-standing alcohol abuse was a material fact that, if disclosed during the policy’s revival, would have led to the rejection of the claim. The insurer argued that this omission violated the principle of utmost good faith in insurance contracts. They presented unsigned hospital records to substantiate their claim that Rajubhai’s alcohol consumption contributed to his death.

💪 Vasantiben’s Unwavering Fight for Justice

Vasantiben strongly refuted the insurer’s accusations, maintaining that her son had no alcohol addiction. She challenged the credibility of the hospital records, pointing out that they were unverified and lacked signatures. Additionally, she argued that the health declaration form did not specifically ask about alcohol consumption, making the claim of non-disclosure unfair and baseless.

Her fight was about more than money—it was about justice for her late son and an effort to hold the insurer accountable for rejecting a rightful claim without proper evidence.

⚖️ NCDRC’s Decisive Verdict: Favoring the Consumer

After a thorough examination of the case, the NCDRC found that Bajaj Allianz had failed to present solid evidence to back up its claim of non-disclosure. The hospital records were deemed unreliable due to missing signatures and insufficient verification. Moreover, the health declaration form did not explicitly inquire about alcohol use, meaning the insurer could not reasonably claim nondisclosure. The NCDRC ruled that ambiguities in the evidence should favor the consumer, overturning Bajaj Allianz's rejection of the claim.

The NCDRC reinstated the earlier District Forum’s decision, ordering Bajaj Allianz to pay ₹4.08 lakh as the insured amount, plus ₹20,618 as the fund value, along with 9% simple interest per annum from the date of the 2013 District Forum order.

🌟 Conclusion: A Victory for Consumers and Justice

This ruling is a significant win for Vasantiben Dafda, who stood up against the insurer’s rejection. It reinforces that insurers must provide clear and credible evidence to deny claims and that ambiguity should always favor policyholders. For Vasantiben, the emotional and financial relief finally comes after a long struggle. The judgment sends a strong message that justice will prevail for consumers in the face of unfair treatment.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is based on the judgment delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the case of Vasantiben Dafda vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Revision Petition No. 1737 of 2017), order dated 07-11-2024. The content reflects the key points of the ruling and is intended for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice. For personalized legal counsel, individuals are encouraged to consult with a qualified legal professional.