Life Insurance - Gbic.co.in

questionnaire in the proposal form. This amounts to suppression of material facts relatingto alcoholism of the assured.Held that the repudiation action taken by the Insurer can not be faulted on any score.Chandigarh Ombudsman CentreCase No. LIC / 138 / Chandigarh / Nangal / 24 - 05Smt. Supari DeviVs.Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward Dated 21.10.2004Facts : Shri Dharam Chand purchased four policies under Salary Savings Scheme atdifferent intervals during 1990 to 1993. He died on 26.8.94. His wife/ nominee Smt. SupariDevi lodged the claim with BO Nangal, which was not settled for many years on the pleathat records had been misplaced. She filed a complaint in this office on 15.7.04.Findings : It was confirmed that all four policies were in force on the date of death ofpolicyholder. However, the claimant failed to submit requisite documents despite repeatedreminders. Last reminder was reportedly sent on 8.2.96 to submit original death certificateand the policy bonds within a period of 10 days.After receipt of a copy of complaint from this office on 20.7.04, the Divisional Office soughtpolicy dockets and detailed report from the branch office to proceed further in the matter.The branch office informed that the basic record could not be traced, as it was destroyed inSept 1990 during Mandal Commission agitation. However, original ledger sheets were sentto the DO. Claim papers were also collected from the claimant and the matter was underactive consideration for payment.Decision : Held that the claimant cannot be held responsible for misplacement ordestruction of record. The insurer was liable to settle the claims. Directed to do so within aperiod of three weeks.Chandigarh Ombudsman CentreCase No. LIC / 208 / Chandigarh / Mandi Gobindgarh / 21 - 05Smt. Harjeet KaurVs.Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward Dated 21.10.2004Facts : Smt. Harjeet Kaur’s husband Late Shri Gurdev Singh had taken a policy for sumassured of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 15.5.99 from B.O. Mandi Gobindgarh. It lapsed on 15.5.01 andwas got revived on 30.3.02. The deceased life assured expired on 28.9.02. The claimlodged by his wife/nominee was repudiated on 28.2.03 on the ground that the LA hadwithheld material information at the time of revival of policy. She filed a complaint allegingthat her claim was repudiated on flimsy grounds and that she was not aware of thesickness of her husband.Findings : It was noted that the insurer repudiated the liability after due investigation,which revealed that DLA had availed of medical leave for 109 days during July 99 toNovember 2000 prior to revival of policy. This was further supported by the fact that he hadsubmitted bills for reimbursement. It also transpired that he was a chronic alcoholic andsuffered from liver disease for two years as per information given in form No. 3784 by themedical attendant. He failed to disclose this in DGH while applying for revival of policy on30.3.02.Decision : Held that the supportive evidence with the insurer was sufficient to warrantrepudiation of the claim. Hence the complaint was dismissed.Chandigarh Ombudsman Centre