Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved