Life Insurance - Gbic.co.in

the Doctor and undergo treatment. The cause of death was also the same heart ailmentsfor which she underwent treatment. Section 45 of the Insurance Act was not applicable andit was held that the insurer has proved material suppression.The complaint was dismissed.Chennai Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (CHN) / 21.08.2198 / 2004 - 05Shri C. ChellappanVs.Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward Dated 15.10.2004Late C. Ramu took a LIC policy for a sum assured of Rs.50,000/- as per his proposal dated 30.3.1999 and the risk under the policy was dated backby LIC to commence from 20.4.1998 as per his request. The policy lapsed due to nonpaymentof premium and the same was revived on 14.1.2003. He also took another policyfor a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Bima Kiran plan, a high risk policy. The assured died on27.4.2003 and the cause of death was Suicide by hanging. LIC repudiated the claim underboth the policies for furnishing incorrect statement relating to his occupation and that hewas unemployed on the date of signing the proposals. LIC had however settled claimsunder 7 earlier policies of the life assured. The repudiation decision was also upheld by theZonal Claims Review Committee and hence the present complaint.The parties to the dispute were heard and the records of the case perused. The lettersobtained from the employers of the deceased, produced before this Forum, did evidencethat the life assured had quit their jobs and was not in their employment establishing falsityof information furnished by the life assured in his proposals for insurance with regard to hisemployment. Howeve the same was not viewed very material since the life assured was anengineering graduate who had the potential to get employed. Therefore it was decided toallow the claim under the first policy. However, since the Agent was the father of the lifeassured himself who was a leading Agent of LIC and also the beneficiary under both thepolicies, LIC was directed to take action against him for his misrepresentation about hisson’s employment in his confidential report.The life assured did not mention in his proposal for second policy that his earlier policywas in a lapsed condition. Had that information been furnished LIC would not haveundertaken to grant that policy and instead would have advised the life assured to revivehis earlier policy before applying for fresh insurance. That there was deliberatesuppression of material information leading to repudiation since opportunity to properlyassess risk was denied to LIC was held valid. Here, the Agent was the mother of the lifeassured who has misrepresented in her confidential report that his son’s previous policywas in force, though records evidenced that the previous policy was in a lapsed condition.LIC was advised to take action against her for her misrepresentation.On the whole, it was held that both the Agents (who were the father and mother of lifeassured and the father being the beneficiary under both the policies) were guilty of grossbreach of good faith reposed on them by LIC and LIC was directed to take stringent actionagainst them for their misrepresentations. The Claim under the first policy was allowed andthe complaint under the subsequent policy was dismissed.Chennai Ombudsman CentreCase No. IO (CHN) / 21.04.2263 / 2004 - 05Smt. K. BinniammalVs.Life Insurance Corporation of IndiaAward Dated 19.10.2004