8 years after father’s death, man gets insurance claim | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 23, 2017-Sunday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

8 years after father’s death, man gets insurance claim

A nominee of a life insurance policy was allowed claim of Rs2 lakh almost eight years after his father's death by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Abhishek Dandekar reports.

mumbai Updated: Mar 04, 2011 02:11 IST
Abhishek Dandekar

A nominee of a life insurance policy was allowed claim of Rs2 lakh almost eight years after his father's death by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

The forum ruled that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) couldn't hold the claimant responsible and repudiate claim of the insured amount, alleging suppression of facts in the policy form, which incidentally was filled by the LIC agent.

The forum directed LIC to settle the policy claim of the complainant and nominee Ashish Agarwal of Rs2 lakh along with 9% interest per month from the day they repudiated the claim.

The forum also directed LIC to pay Rs13,000 as compensation towards mental agony and cost of complaint.

According to the complainant, his father Naval Agarwal had taken a life insurance policy in April 2001.

His father expired in April 2003, while the policy was still valid. When the insurance claim was lodged, LIC repudiated it on March 11, 2004, stating that the deceased insured had withheld information about his previous policy of Rs1 lakh while filling the policy form.

The agency said that if the insurer had disclosed details of the previous policy, LIC would have called for relevant report at the time of considering the new proposal. Non-disclosure of details was suppression of facts by the insured; the LIC alleged that it was right in repudiating the claim.

The complainant said that the insurance agent, who dealt with the current claim, was the one who had dealt with the previous policy in 2000. LIC did not deny this.

The forum observed that even if the insured had concealed particulars of the previous policy, the agent should have rectified it.

It stated that the non-disclosure of the previous policy was not a deliberate act, the insured might not be aware of it as the LIC agent filled up the form and therefore allowed the insurance claim to the complainant along with other compensation.