The state consumer commission, upholding the district commission's order, has directed HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. to provide a widow with ₹15 lakhs along with other compensation. HDFC had challenged the order, claiming that the insured individual who passed away had concealed material facts about their occupation, income, and alcohol consumption. The commission stated that HDFC failed to prove these claims, as the findings from an investigator did not indicate that the deceased was a habitual alcoholic.
The order, dated May 18 and recently uploaded, was issued by Justice S. P. Tavade (President) and S. T. Barne (Judicial Member) of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). The order was given in response to an appeal filed by HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., headquartered in Mumbai, against a district consumer commission ruling in favor of complainant Savitri Vijay Bhosle from Kolhapur.
Wife sought to claim insurance but, it was rejected
Savitri's husband, Vijay, had taken out an insurance policy called 'HDFC Life Click 2 Protect Plan' in May 2013, with a sum assured of ₹15 lakhs for a duration of 20 years. HDFC Standard approved his application and issued the insurance policy. Bhosle had diligently paid an annual premium of ₹5,721. Unfortunately, Vijay Bhosle passed away in November 2013 due to a severe heart attack. When his wife sought to claim the insurance, it was rejected, leading to the involvement of the district commission, which ruled in favor of the widow.
HDFC Standard, in its appeal, contested the district consumer commission's order. The district commission had directed HDFC Standard to provide the widow with ₹15 lakhs, along with nine percent interest, and an additional ₹15,000 for mental agony and litigation costs.
HDFC argued that Bhosle had provided incorrect information about his salary and his alcohol consumption. The commission, relying on case laws, stated that claims can be denied if the provided information is false. However, it concluded that there was no evidence on record to support the claims made by HDFC regarding the deceased's occupation, income, and drinking habits. The commission noted that the investigator's report, which HDFC relied upon, did not contain any certification from the treating doctor indicating that the deceased was a habitual alcoholic. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the district commission's order was upheld.
