Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Company ... vs Neeta Singh on 24 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14497
1 MP-834-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 834 of 2025
HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
NEETA SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
1. By way of present Misc. Petition, the petitioner is seeking following
reliefs and grounds;
''7.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ of certiorari and set aside the impugned
order dated 07.11.2024 passed by National Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in interest
of justice.
7.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.''
2. The present Misc. Petition has been filed on the following
grounds;-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14497
2 MP-834-2025
(a) That the National Commission failed to appreciate
that candid disclosure of ailments would have resulted
in refusal to issue the policy or a higher premium would
have been charged. This thepolicy obtained by
suppressing material facts is ab initio void.
(b) That impugned award passed by the National
Commission does not take into consideration section 19
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and section 45 the
Insurance Act, 1938.
(c) That the impugned award is also dehorse the terms
of policy dated 28.06.2025 in as much as terms of the
policy disentitle the beneficiary of any claim in the
event of suppression of material facts.
(d) That the policy dated 28.06.2025 has been obtained
by practicing fraud and is a nullity in eyes of law.
(e) That that the finding recorded by the National
Commission that the deceased died of a road accident
which has no nexus with suppression of ailments is
contrary to law as well settled by catena of judicial
pronouncements.
(f) That the impugned order by the National
Commission has an effect of altering terms of the policy
and going beyond the terms agreed between the parties
for issuance of the policy in question.
3. The husband of the respondent/claimant obtained an insurance
policy from the appellant, Insurance Company, on 28.06.2015. Thereafter, on
16.08.2015, while returning from Omkareshwar to Ujjain during the Kanwar
Yatra, the life insured met with a road accident on the Indore-Khandwa Road
and unfortunately passed away. Following the death, the respondent/claimant
submitted a claim to the appellant for the insurance policy benefit. However,
the appellant rejected the claim on the grounds that material facts regarding
the life insured's previous health conditions were not disclosed in the
proposal form. Aggrieved by this rejection, the respondent/claimant filed a
complaint (No. CC/16/83) before the State Commission.
4. The petitioner contends that the deceased had duly completed,
signed, and submitted the proposal form containing the necessary details.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14497
3 MP-834-2025
Based on the information provided, the petitioner issued Policy No.
17686503 under the HDFC Life Click-2 Protect+ Policy. Upon receiving
notice of the deceased's death and the subsequent claim, an investigation was
conducted. The investigation revealed that the life insured had concealed
material information about his health. Specifically, the deceased had failed to
disclose his medical history, which included diabetes mellitus, coronary
artery disease, triple vessel disease, and myocardial infarction, along with
undergoing angioplasty prior to the issuance of the policy. Since these facts
were intentionally concealed, the appellant asserts that the claim is not
payable.
5. It is not in dispute that the deceased died as a result of a road
accident. The counsel for the appellant submits that since the deceased had
concealed material facts relating to his health during the application for the
insurance policy, the respondent is not entitled to the policy's benefits. The
appellant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
P.C. Chacko and Another Vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India
and Others (2008) 1 SCC 321. judgment The relevant para is reproduced
below:-
''15. The insured's brother was an agent of Life
Insurance Corporation of India, It was he, who had
asked the insured to take the insurance policy. He, being
an authorised agent of Life Insurance Corporation,
presumably knew the effect of misstatement of facts.
Misstatement by itself, however, was not material for
repudiation of the policy unless the same is material in
nature.''
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14497
4 MP-834-2025
6. The similar and same issue came up before this Court in case of Life
Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Gurjeet Kaur, Writ Petition
No. 33122/2024, decided by this Court on 11.02.2025 and it was observed
that the claimant was entitled to the benefit of the policy, as there was no
direct nexus between the alleged concealment of health facts and the cause
of death, therefore, suppression was held to be not material suppression.
7. In the present case, it is undisputed that the deceased died as a result
of a road accident. The concealed facts about the deceased's health have no
direct connection to the cause of death and do not amount to material
suppression. As such, there is no justifiable reason to deny the claim based
on the non-disclosure of health information.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the Miscellaneous
Petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is dismissed, and the
respondent/claimant is held entitled to receive the benefits of the insurance
policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy, as held by National
Commission.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Praveen
