Introduction
When tragedy struck in late 2017, the claimant found herself grappling with the sudden death of her husband, who had passed away at the age of just 37 due to a cardiac arrest. Amid the grief, she turned to the life insurance policy her husband had taken—a policy of ₹1 crore with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), meant to provide financial security to the family. But instead of relief, she was confronted with rejection. LIC repudiated the claim, accusing the deceased of failing to disclose past homeopathic treatment and medical leaves. This denial forced the claimant into a long and painful legal battle. Years later, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has now delivered justice, declaring LIC’s repudiation untenable and directing full payment of the insured sum.
Brief Case History
In April 2017, the deceased had applied for a life cover of ₹1 crore with LIC, agreeing to pay an annual premium of ₹18,400 for 20 years. Before granting the policy, LIC subjected him to thorough medical tests, including ECG and treadmill evaluations, all of which came back normal. Based on these assessments, the policy commenced on 18-May-2017. Tragically, on 23-Dec-2017, he succumbed to sudden cardiac arrest. The claimant lodged the death claim in January 2018, expecting that the contract of insurance would hold true when it was needed most. To her shock, LIC rejected the claim in October 2018, stating that the deceased had concealed facts such as treatment for bronchitis at a homeopathic clinic and medical leaves taken during his employment.
The Claimant’s Arguments 🙍♀️
The claimant’s counsel strongly refuted the grounds for repudiation, arguing that the treatment in question was minor, temporary, and wholly unrelated to the cause of death. Homeopathic remedies for cough and flu-like symptoms, taken briefly years earlier, could not be equated with a chronic illness. Moreover, all pre-policy medical tests conducted under LIC’s supervision had certified the deceased as healthy. The claimant emphasized that LIC had unfairly stretched irrelevant details to escape its contractual liability. Adding to her distress, LIC even sought information from the local police about any possible complaints against the deceased under the Domestic Violence Act—a move the claimant described as humiliating and unnecessary. She pressed that the denial of claim amounted to harassment, and sought not only the policy proceeds but also compensation for mental agony.
The Respondent’s Defense 🏢
On the other hand, LIC maintained that its decision was justified. It argued that the principle of “utmost good faith” demanded complete disclosure of medical history by the proposer. According to LIC, the deceased had been under treatment for chronic bronchitis and lipoma since 2015, had taken medical leaves, and availed reimbursements from employers—facts never revealed in the proposal form. They contended that he had provided false answers to specific health-related questions, thereby violating the trust essential for insurance contracts. Relying on Section 45 of the Insurance Act, LIC asserted that it had every right to repudiate the claim within three years of policy issuance, and that the refund of premium already paid was a fair settlement.
The Court’s Observations 🔎
Key Observations
- “The cause of death—sudden cardiac arrest—had no connection whatsoever with the temporary homeopathic treatment for bronchitis.”
- “The deceased was thoroughly examined by LIC’s empanelled doctors before policy issuance, and no life-threatening ailment was found.”
- “Temporary treatment for a cough-like condition cannot be classified as suppression of material fact.”
Judgment Highlights
- Insurer’s approach to seek domestic violence complaints was strongly disapproved.
- LIC’s repudiation lacked merit and was declared unjustified.
- Fairness and accountability reaffirmed as core principles of insurance contracts.
Final Judgment and Conclusion ⚖️
The NCDRC concluded that LIC’s repudiation was baseless and amounted to deficiency in service. It directed LIC to pay the full policy sum of ₹1,00,00,000 to the claimant, along with interest at 6% per annum from 08-Oct-2018 (date of repudiation) until realization. If LIC fails to pay within two months, the interest rate will rise to 8% per annum. Additionally, LIC was ordered to pay ₹50,000 as litigation costs.
This judgment not only brings relief to the claimant but also reaffirms a crucial principle—that insurance contracts cannot be twisted to deny rightful claims on flimsy grounds. It stands as a reminder that fairness and accountability must remain at the heart of the insurance industry.
This article pertains to the case Consumer Complaint No. 2015 of 2019 — Smt. Kanta vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, adjudicated by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 08-Sep-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.
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