IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22273 of 2017
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Pradeep Savadia …. Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Insurance Ombudsman, Odisha, …. Opposite Party (s)
Bhubaneswar and Ors.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avijit Pal, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Prakash Ranjan Barik, Adv.
(for O.P.1)
Mr. R. Acharya, Adv.
(for O.Ps.2 & 3)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-13.02.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -28.03.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has made a prayer to quash the
order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Opposite Party No.1/ Insurance
Ombudsman, Odisha, Bhubaneswar dismissing his Complaint
No.BHU-L-025-1415-341 and the letter dated 23.07.2014 issued by the
Opposite Party No.3/ Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company
Limited, Madhupatna, Cuttack repudiating all liability under the Policy
i.e. Policy No.02550667. He further seeks a direction from this Court to
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 17
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3/ Insurance Company to pay the sum
assured under the Policy for an amount of Rs.3,63,760/- as death benefit
along with market rate of interest @ 19% per annum.
I. F M C :
ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE
2. The brief fact of the case is that:
(i) the wife of the Petitioner named Jyoti Savadia purchased a life
insurance policy with the Opposite Party No.2/ HDFC Life Insurance
Company Limited, Mumbai by way of submitting proposal form dated
25.10.2012 under the product name "ING STAR LIFE" bearing policy
No.02550667 being paid the premium in time for a sum assured of
Rs.1,72,833/- and guaranteed death benefit of Rs.3,63,760/- keeping the
Petitioner as her nominee.
(ii) The wife of the Petitioner had paid the premium of Rs.75,000/- on
20.10.2012 and Rs.73,876/- on 16.11.2013 for the aforesaid policy for
which the Opposite Party No.3, Manager, HDFC Life Insurance
Company Limited, Cuttack issued the premium paid certificates to that
effect. However, during the subsistence of the policy, she died due to
heart attack/cardiac arrest on 28.03.2014.
(iii) As the nominee to the aforesaid policy, after completion of all the death
related ceremonies of his wife, the Petitioner submitted the Death
Intimation-cum-Claim Form before the Opposite Party No.2 along with
all requisite documents on 22.04.2014 which was duly received by
them.
(iv) The Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3/ insurer sat over the matter for three
months. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3 in its letter dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 2 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
23.07.2014 which was received by the Petitioner on 31.07.2014
repudiated the claim of the Petitioner on the account of non-disclosure
of previous insurance covers taken by Life Assured from different
companies at proposal stage.
(v) Being aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim by the Opposite Party
No.3, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1/ Insurance
Ombudsman, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. The Opposite Party No.1/
Insurance Ombudsman, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide order dated
07.08.2015 dismissed the Complaint No.BHU-L-025-1415-341 of the
Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this
Court.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The ground of repudiation and rejection of the Petitioner’s claim was
for non-disclosure of previous insurance covers taken by Life Assured
from different companies at proposal stage relying on the Clause 5.4 of
the Terms and Conditions of the basic policy wherein it was mentioned
that subject to the provisions of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938.
But at the same time the Opposite Parties completely dealt with the
matter in a very mechanical and routine manner and construction of
the terms and conditions on a literal and strained.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 3 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
(ii) The Opposite Parties declined the claim of the Petitioner based on the
interpretation of Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 which reads as
under:
“Policy not to be called in question on ground of
misstatement after two years. No policy of life
insurance effected before the commencement of
this Act shall, after the expiry of two years from
the date of commencement of this Act & no policy
of life insurance effected after the coming into
force of this Act shall, after the expiry of two years
from the date on which it was effected, be called in
question by an insurer on the ground that a
statement made in the proposal for insurance or in
any report of a medical officer, or referee, or friend
of the insured, or in any other document leading
to the issue of the policy, was inaccurate or false,
unless the insurer shows that such statement was
on a material matter or suppressed facts which it
was material to disclose & that it was
fraudulently made by the policy-holder & that the
policy holder knew at the time of making it that
the statement was false or that it suppressed facts
which it was material to disclose.
Xx xx xx xx xx xx”.
(iii) From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it can be conclude that
there are three conditions for application of the second part of Section
45 of the Insurance Act, which are:
a. the statement must be on a material matter or must suppress
facts which it was material to disclose;
b. the suppression must be fraudulently made by the policy-
holder; and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 4 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
c. the policy-holder must have known at the time of making the
statement that it was false or that it suppressed facts which it was
material to disclose.
(iv) Applying the above principle of law in the case in hand non-disclosure
of previous insurance covers taken by Life Assured from different
companies at proposal stage has no bearing on the risk undertaken by
the insurer i.e. the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. As per Section 45 of the
Insurance Act, it does not qualify the materiality or material facts and it
cannot be construed as fraudulent suppression to repudiate the
contract of insurance.
(v) It is well settled principle of law that the insurance claim cannot be
repudiated on the ground of suppression, false or non- discloser of
facts in the proposal form which does qualify as a material facts or
having no bearing on the risk of the insurer as per Section 45 of the
Insurance Act.
(vi) In the case of Rohini Nandan Goswami v. Ocean Accident &
Guarantee Corporation1, while considering the duty of a insured to
disclose material facts and the right of the insurer to avoid the
insurance policy in case of such non-disclosure, the Court observed
that as to whether a particular fact is material depends upon the
circumstances of a particular case. Evidence of materiality is not always
necessary. Materiality of a particular fact may be obvious from its very
nature. The test to determine materiality is whether the fact has any
Signature Not1 VAeIRr i1fi9e6d0 Calcutta 696
Digitally Signed
Page 5 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
bearing on the risk undertaken by the insurer. If the fact has any
bearing on the risk, it is a material fact; if not it is immaterial
(vii) A Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Life Insurance
Corporation of India V. Janaki Ammal2; has observed as follows:
“Thus, there is ample authority for the proposition that,
an insurer could avoid a contract of insurance after the
expiry of period of two years mentioned in the first part
of Section 45 of the Insurance Act only on the ground of
suppression of illness, which affects the expectation of
life of the insured & not mere temporary or trivial illness
& that unless the disease he was suffering from is clearly
established & it is also established that disease would
have a material bearing on the insurability of the policy
holder, the policy cannot be invalidated. We are,
therefore, clear that in the circumstances of this case, the
mere fact that the deceased had been taking medicines &
injections without proof of anything more would not be
sufficient to invalidate the policy.”
(viii) The Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and
Ors. v. Smt. Asha Goel and Anr3., has observed as follows:
"In course of time the Corporation has grown in size &
at present it is one of the largest public sector financial
undertakings. The public in general & crores of policy-
holders in particulars look forward to prompt & efficient
service from the Corporation. Therefore the authorities
in-charge of Management of the affairs of the
Corporation should bear in mind that its credibility &
reputation depend on its prompt & efficient service.
Therefore, the approach of the Corporation in the matter
of repudiation of a policy admittedly issued by it should
2 AIR 1968 Mad 324
Signature Not3 V20e0r1i fSieCdW 161
Digitally Signed
Page 6 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
be one of extreme care & caution. It should not be dealt
with any mechanical & routine manner.”
(ix) A division Bench of this Court has dealt with a similar case i.e. in the
case of Smt. Gouri Sethi v. Divisional Manager of L.I.C. and Ors. AIR
2007 (Orissa) 19, wherein a similar situation the LIC had repudiated the
claim on the ground that the deceased insured had furnished false
statement to the questionnaire contained in the proposal form and had
suppressed his age and physical deformity. Referring to the
aforementioned decision of the Madras High Court in Life Insurance
Corporation of India V. Janaki Ammal (supra) this Court hold that the
deceased insured had not stated in the proposal form that he was
suffering from Acid Peptic disease and Allergic and has been treated
for Hypertension prior to taking of the insurance policy. Admittedly,
the deceased insured died of Cardiac Vascular Arrest and Hemiplegia.
The suppression of prior ailment not affecting the expectation of life
cannot be a ground to repudiate the policy. Accordingly, this Court
directed the LIC to release the claim of the Petitioner therein. Similarly,
in the case of Kuni Lata Sahoo -vs- Senior Manager, L.I.C. of India &
Anr.4 it has been settled:
“The Insurance policy, apart from its special feature, is a
contract between a person seeking to be insured & the
insurer. In interpreting the terms of contract of
insurance, they should receive fair, reasonable & sensible
construction in consonance with the purpose of the
contract as intended by the parties. Emphasis in such
cases is laid more upon a practical & reasonable, rather
Signature Not4 VAeIRr i2fi0e1d0 Ori 19
Digitally Signed
Page 7 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
than on a literal & strained construction. In interpreting
the contract of insurance neither the coverage under a
policy should be unnecessarily broadened, nor should the
policy be rendered ineffective in consequence of
unnatural or unreasonable construction. An attempt
should be to construe a contract in liberal manner so as to
accomplish the purpose or the object for which it is made.
In the absence of ambiguity, neither party can be
favoured but where the construction is doubtful, the
Courts lean strongly against the party who prepared the
contract. Where there is a susceptibility of 2
interpretations, the one favourable to the insured is to be
preferred.”
(x) The wife of the Petitioner the insured was aware that the Opposite
Party Nos.2 and 3 never failed to honour their commitments and
obligations under an insured policy. So also the insurance company
very well knows that someone’s life cannot be compensated in terms of
money. Whatever is compensated becomes a drop in an ocean of loss to
the bereaved family. To provide protection in the family of insured is
the key role behind insurance, death should have been occurred.
(xi) It is common thing that ordinarily any of the agents never put such
questions and in the case in hand, agents have failed to put such
question at the proposal stage. That being so, there was no question of
any non-disclosure on the part of the assured. For this an assured
cannot be blamed. The assured could not have known all the terms and
conditions of the printed proposal form, particularly when the assured
was a lady and never knew that such a policy with the Opposite Party
Nos.2 and 3 would being her end. The assured was not asked to say of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 8 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
her previous covers. On the other hand, the agents and officers
explained that an assured could avail as many as policies and there was
no bar for the same. The repudiation on the part of Opposite Party
Nos.2 and 3 cannot be construed as fair, reasonable and rational since
such repudiation was against the commitments and obligations. As it
appears when a death claim was made, it was discovered that there
was non- disclosure of material facts and although from the death of
assured several months passed and so also successive deposits of
premiums were accepted. The irregularity now pointed out so
belatedly by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 could not be known.
(xii) Non-disclosure of the fact of other life insurance policies is not in any
manner prejudicial to the insurer Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. The
same did not affect the life expectancy of the deceased insured as the
cause of death of the insured was admitted by the Opposite Party
Nos.2 and 3. As such, repudiation of the claim of the Petitioner by the
insurer Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 and the rejection of the claim of the
Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.1 were not proper and justified.
(xiii) The petitioner made several representations to the Opposite Party
Nos.2 and 3 time and again with a hope to get some positive result and
waited for it. In view of such expectation and due to some mental
depression and imbalance state of mind in the aftermath of the sad
demises of his wife he could not come forward to agitate this issue
before this Court for some time.
(xiv) In such premises, he submitted that the prayer of the Petitioner may be
allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 9 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1:
4. In reply, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The Insurance Ombudsman, is a statutory authority established under
Rule-7 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017, and used to
discharge its duties as per the provisions of the said Rules. Therefore,
the Insurance Ombudsman is neither a necessary nor a property party
for adjudication of the Writ Petition. Hence, the Petitioner should not
have impleaded the Insurance Ombudsman as Opposite Party No.1.
IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NOS.2
AND 3:
5. In reply, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3/ Insurance
Company earnestly made the following submissions in support of his
contentions.
(a) The death of Life Assured (LA) has taken place within a period of 17
months from the date of commencement of the Policy i.e. from
25.10.2012. On inquiry, it was revealed that the LA has
suppressed/withheld/not disclosed that she had existing/simultaneous
multiple insurance covers/Insurance Policies (about 17) with other
Insurance Companies.
(b) The LA had got maximum number of insurance policies about 17 with
high maturity value in addition to the above total sum assured value of
Rs.21 Lakhs from different Insurance Companies. In addition, she had
also obtained Insurance Policy from the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 10 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
Insurance Company with maturity value of sum assured of
Rs.1,72,833/- and guaranteed death benefit of Rs.3,63,760/- by
suppressing the above truth. Thus, the Life Assured had intentionally
misguided the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3/ Insurance Company to get
more death benefit by way of sum assured to the Nominee viz. her
spouse (petitioner herein).
(c) If the Life Assured had not suppressed the above true material
information in the proposal form then the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3
insurer by factoring all the details of the previous policies availed with
different insurers and comparing the same with annual income of the
Life Assured would have taken a decision as to whether to expose itself
to the risk of accepting the proposal and issued the policy in favour of
the wife of the Petitioner.
(d) The very fact of death of the wife of the Petitioner i.e. Life Assured
within 7 months of the policy corroborates that the Life Assured had
intentionally taken multiple policies to get the maximum insurance
death benefit from multiple Insurance Companies.
(e) In accordance with Clause 5.4 of the present policy in the aforesaid
matter, the insurer can repudiate or forfeit the policy on the ground of
inaccuracy of declarations. In this regard, the Clause 5.4 of the policy is
reproduced verbatim as follows:
“Clause 5.4- Forfeiture in certain events:
In issuing this policy, the Company has relied on, and
may rely on accuracy and completeness of the
information provided by the Proposer/Life Assured and
any other declarations and statements made or as may be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 11 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
made hereafter, by the Policy holder/Life assured.
Subject to the provisions of the applicable Regulations
including Section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938, in the
event of any such information declaration or statement
is found to be false or incorrect or any material
information is found to be withheld or misrepresented,
the Policy shall become null and void from the
commencement and shall forthwith terminate, and
company shall cease to be liable for the benefits under
this Policy. In such case, the Company may forfeit the
amounts received under this Policy."
(f) Thus, the death benefits as per the policy terms stand forfeited and,
therefore, the nominee / the petitioner herein is not entitled legally to
claim the sum assured under the policy. Further, in terms of amended
Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, Life Insurance Policy can be
called in question within 3 years on the ground that any material
information has been suppressed or withheld or fraudulently made by
the Policy holder and that the policy holder knew at the time of making
that statement it was false. In the instant case, the Insurance Company
based on the false information has taken a decision to issue the Policy.
It is evident from the proposal Form under point Nos.52, 53 and 54 that
the LA has suppressed existence of insurance policies with other
companies and, thus, Section 45 of the aforesaid Act is applicable.
Further, if LA had not suppressed the above factual material
information in the proposal form then the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3/
Company by factoring all the details of the policies proposed by him
with different insurance companies and comparing them would have
taken a call whether to expose to the risk of accepting the proposal and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 12 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
issue the policy. Thus, the information is very material as per Section 45
of the Act which would culminate into the forfeiture of the claim
benefit under the Policy.
(g) The present Petitioner has also accepted on record the suppression of
material fact with regard to the non-disclosure of previous insurance
policies before the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the Insurance Ombudsman
which has been reflected in the impugned order.
(h) Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the
Opposite Party No.1/ Insurance Ombudsman. So, the present Writ
Petition is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed.
V. C R A :
’
OURT S EASONING AND NALYSIS
6. In the present case, the issue for consideration is “whether the
Petitioner/nominee is entitled to get the benefit under life insurance
policy in the event of death of the life insured if she while submitting
the insurance proposal form had suppressed the fact that she had
availed previous insurance policies from different insurance
companies?
7. Admittedly, the Petitioner being the husband is the nominee of the
insurance policy. The wife of the Petitioner named Jyoti Savadia
purchased a life insurance policy with the Opposite Party No.2/ HDFC
Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai by way of submitting
proposal form dated 25.10.2012 under the product name "ING STAR
LIFE" bearing policy No.02550667 being paid the premium in time for a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 13 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
sum assured of Rs.1,72,833/- and guaranteed death benefit of
Rs.3,63,760/- keeping the Petitioner as her nominee.
8. The wife of the Petitioner had paid the premium of Rs.75,000/- on
20.10.2012 and Rs.73,876/- on 16.11.2013 for the aforesaid police for
which the Opposite Party No.3, Manager, HDFC Life Insurance
Company Limited, Cuttack issued the premium paid certificates to that
effect. However, during the subsistence of the policy, she died due to
heart attack/cardiac arrest on 28.03.2014.
9. As the nominee to the aforesaid policy, after completion of all the death
ceremonies of his wife, the Petitioner submitted the Death Intimation-
cum-Claim Form before the Opposite Party No.2 along with all
requisite documents on 22.04.2014 which was duly received by them.
The Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3/ insurer sat over the matter for three
months. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3 in its letter dated
23.07.2014 which was received by the Petitioner on 31.07.2014
repudiated the claim of the Petitioner on account of non-disclosure of
previous insurance covers taken by Life Assured from different
companies at proposal stage.
10. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim by the Opposite Party
No.3, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1/ Insurance
Ombudsman, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. The Opposite Party No.1/
Insurance Ombudsman vide order dated 07.08.2015 dismissed the
Complaint No.BHU-L-025-1415-341 of the Petitioner. Therefore, the
Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 14 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
11. It is not disputed that there was non-disclosure of previous insurance
covers taken by Life Assured from different companies at proposal
stage.
12. However, it was strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that non-disclosure of the fact of other life insurance policies
does not in any manner prejudice the insurer Opposite Party Nos.2 and
3. The same did not affect the life expectancy of the deceased insured as
the cause of death of the insured was admitted by the Opposite Party
Nos.2 and 3. As such, repudiation of the claim of the Petitioner by the
insurer Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 and the rejection of the claim of the
Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.1 were not proper and justified.
13. In reply, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 contended
that the Insurance Company based on the false information has taken a
decision to issue the Policy. It is evident from the proposal form under
point Nos.52, 53 and 54 that the LA has suppressed existence insurance
policies with other companies and, thus, Section 45 of the Act is
applicable. Further, if LA had not suppressed the above factual
material information in the proposal form then the Opposite Party
Nos.2 and 3/ Company by factoring all the details of the policies
proposed by him with different insurance companies and comparing
them would have taken a call whether to expose to the risk of accepting
the proposal and issue the policy. Thus, the information is very
material as per Section 45 of the Act which would culminate forfeiture
of the claim benefit under the Policy.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 15 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
14. The apex Court in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. –vrs.-
REkhaben Nareshbhai Rathod5 in paragraph 29 has held as follows:
“We are not impressed with the submission that the
proposer was unaware of the contents of the form that he
was required to fill up or that in assigning such a
response to a third party, he was absolved of the
consequence of appending his signatures to the proposal.
The proposer duly appended his signature to the proposal
form and the grant of the insurance cover was on the
basis of the statements contained in the proposal form.
Barely two months before the contract of insurance was
entered into with the appellant, the insured had obtained
another insurance cover for his life in the sum of Rs 11
lakhs. We are of the view that the failure of the insured to
disclose the policy of insurance obtained earlier in the
proposal form entitled the insurer to repudiate the claim
under the policy.”
15. Therefore, in light of the discussion above, keeping the settled
principles of law in mind and considering the rival contentions made
by both the learned counsel for the Parties, this Court is of the view
that admittedly, the insured in this case has failed to disclose the
previous insurance covers taken by her from different companies at
proposal stage. Therefore, failure on the part of the insured (wife of the
Petitioner) of the same in the proposal form entitled the insurer i.e. the
Opposite Party No.2 and 3 to repudiate the claim under the Policy.
16. In such view of the matter, there is no error apparent in the order dated
07.08.2015 passed by the Opposite Party No.1/ Insurance Ombudsman,
5 th
(decided on 24 April, 2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.4261 of 2019 arising out of
SLP(C) No.14312 of 2015)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 16 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38
Odisha, Bhubaneswar dismissing his Complaint No.BHU-L-025-1415-
341 and the letter dated 23.07.2014 issued by the Opposite Party No.3/
Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, Madhupatna,
Cuttack repudiating all liability under the Policy i.e. Policy
No.02550667.
17. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 28th March, 2024/ B. Jhankar
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Page 17 of 17
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Apr-2024 20:52:38