In early 2017, a modest family from Merta City, Rajasthan, faced the sudden loss of their main earning member due to a heart attack. A ₹25 lakh life insurance policy from Bharti AXA was meant to provide security, but the company rejected the claim. What followed was a long legal battle, culminating in a landmark decision by the NCDRC in 2025.
🌟 From Heartbreak to Justice
In early 2017, life changed forever for a modest family from Merta City, Rajasthan. The sudden death of the family’s main earning member — a young man in his prime — due to a heart attack 💔 left his mother, children, and extended family in shock. Amid the grief, there was one reassurance: a ₹25 lakh life insurance policy he had taken from Bharti AXA Life Insurance just over a year earlier. That policy was meant to protect the family from financial ruin.
But instead of relief, the family was met with devastation again when Bharti AXA rejected the claim ❌, alleging that the insured had concealed important details. What followed was not just a legal fight — it was a fight for dignity, truth, and the fulfillment of a promise.
📜 The Journey Through the Courts
The life insurance policy, taken in December 2015, carried an annual premium of ₹10,900 and promised financial security for 20 years. Tragedy struck in January 2017. The insured’s mother filed a claim with Bharti AXA in the months that followed, expecting the company to honor the agreement.
On 8 June 2017, however, Bharti AXA formally repudiated the claim. Their reason: the insured had allegedly not disclosed details of other life insurance policies he held. The mother, unwilling to accept what she saw as an unfair rejection, approached the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2018.
In March 2021, the State Commission dismissed her complaint. While many might have stopped there, she refused to give up. She appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in New Delhi. Unfortunately, during the long course of proceedings, she passed away. Yet her daughters and grandchildren stepped in, determined to see her fight through to the end.
💬 The Family’s Arguments
The family firmly maintained that the insured had not concealed anything. They explained that the proposal form for the policy was in English and had been digitally filled in by the company’s own agent 💻. The agent asked the questions in the local language, and the insured answered truthfully.
One key section — “Details of existing/proposed insurance” — had simply been left blank. This was the crux of the company’s allegation. But according to the family, leaving a column blank was not the same as giving a false answer.
They also highlighted a telling fact: Bharti AXA had itself issued three policies to the insured — two of them on the very same day in December 2015. This, they argued, proved that the company already knew about other policies. If the question about “existing policies” was so vital, the insurer should have ensured the section was completed before issuing the policy.
In their view, the claim had been rejected on a flawed premise. They accused the company of ignoring the truth and punishing the insured for something he did not do.
🛡️ Bharti AXA’s Defense
Bharti AXA held firm to its position. Its lawyers argued that the insured had intentionally withheld information about other life insurance policies from different companies. This, they claimed, amounted to suppression of material facts — a serious breach of the insurance contract.
They insisted that the policy had been obtained through misrepresentation and that the company was justified in rejecting the claim. In their submissions, they portrayed the non-disclosure as deliberate and fundamental to the decision to insure.
👩⚖️ The Court’s Observations
After examining the appeal, the NCDRC made several important observations:
Key Highlights:
- Leaving a column blank is not the same as giving a false answer.
- If such information was genuinely material, the insurer should have ensured the proposal form was complete before issuing the policy.
- The proposal form appeared to be type-filled by an agent or company official, not by the insured himself.
- There was no evidence of any willful intention to conceal or mislead.
- The State Commission had erred in dismissing the complaint without fully considering these points.
✅ The Final Judgment
The NCDRC set aside the Rajasthan State Commission’s 2021 order and allowed the family’s complaint. Bharti AXA Life Insurance was ordered to:
- Pay the full ₹25,00,000 sum assured under the policy.
- Add interest at 9% per annum from the date the original complaint was filed until the date of actual payment.
- Complete the payment within 45 days of the judgment.
🌹 A Bittersweet Victory
For the family, this judgment is both a relief and a reminder of all they endured. They succeeded in proving the honesty of their loved one and in upholding the promise of the policy. They also demonstrated that persistence — even across years and generations — can bring justice.
But the triumph came at a cost. Both the insured and the original claimant, his mother, did not live to see the outcome. The verdict now stands as a legal acknowledgment of their truth, and a testament to the family’s resilience.
📌 Disclaimer
This article pertains to the case First Appeal No. 722 of 2021 — Chhoti Devi (Deceased) through LRs vs Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., adjudicated by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 11-Aug-2025. It is provided for informational purposes only, offering a summary of the judicial ruling based exclusively on the facts and records available from the case, and does not constitute legal advice. The claimant’s identity, as well as those of individual family members, is withheld to safeguard privacy. It is expressly stated that there is no intention to defame, criticize, or cast any negative judgment upon any individual, entity, or party involved in the proceedings. The content is solely derived from the official case details and is presented with the utmost respect for all parties, aiming to inform without prejudice. Readers are advised to seek counsel from a qualified legal practitioner for authoritative guidance.
🖼️ Image Disclaimer
The image used in this article is AI-generated and intended for representation purposes only. It does not depict any actual individual or party involved in the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment