Supreme Court: Issues of Party Capacity and Maintainability Must Be Decided by Arbitral Tribunal  ||  Supreme Court: Omissions in Chief Examination Can Be Rectified During Cross-Examination  ||  Supreme Court: Items Given by Accused to Police Are Not Section 27 Recoveries under Evidence Act  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Institutions Must Pay Court Fees When Filing Disputes in State Tribunal  ||  Allahabad High Court: Law Treats All Equally, State Cannot Gain Undue Benefit from Delay Condonation  ||  SC: SARFAESI Act Was Not Applicable in Nagaland Before its 2021 Adoption, Dismisses Creditor’s Plea  ||  SC: Lis Pendens Applies To Money Suits on Mortgaged Property, Including Ex Parte Proceedings  ||  Kerala HC: Civil Courts Cannot Grant Injunctions in NCLT Matters and Such Orders Can Be Set Aside  ||  Bombay High Court: Technical Breaks to Temporary Employees Cannot Deny Maternity Leave Benefits  ||  NCLAT: Appellate Jurisdiction Limited to Orders Deciding Parties’ Rights, Not Procedural Directions    

Swadeshpal Singh v. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company & Anr. - (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (09 Aug 2016)

No legal contract will come into force unless the offer and acceptance of proposal is made

Consumer

Wife of complainant/petitioner, took housing loan from HDFC Ltd. For security of said loan, HDFC loan cover term insurance policy was purchased from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Limited. Complainant submitted the proposal form on 29th December, 2004 by paying premium. Accordingly, Opposite Party issued a letter that, date of commencement of policy was 20th January, 2005. Policy was issued after conducting medical examination of insured and no disease was found with insured and OP accepted policy. Insurance Company repudiated Complainant’s claim. Though District Forum allowed complaint but State Commission dismissed same.

No legal contract will come into force unless the offer and acceptance of proposal is made. In instant case, complainant’s wife submitted the proposal form by remitting premium but, insurance company did not accept proposal in view of medical condition of the wife of the complainant. She was under weight. Therefore, additional premium was charged and offer was accepted after paying additional premium on 28th March, 2005.

It was evident from medical record produced by insurance company that, she had knowledge of disease. There was sufficient evidence on record to prove that, between December 2004 to 28th March, 2005 her medical condition had changed and she was under obligation to inform Company subsequent developments in her health. Thus, it was apparent that, Complainant concealed material facts from Insurance Company.” While dismissing Revision Petition, National Commission held that, it was the duty of the proposer, that she should have communicated the change in her health condition, after submitting proposal form

Tags : INSURANCE   PROPOSAL   OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE   COMPENSATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved