Gujarat consumer commission upholds IndusInd Nippon Life's rejection of Rs 8 lakh claim
The Gujarat State Consumer Commission held that IndusInd Nippon Life rightly rejected a term-plan claim because the policyholder did not disclose an earlier policy in the proposal form.
Key points
- The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed IndusInd Nippon Life Insurance's appeal on 3 November 2026.
- It set aside a 2017 district forum order on an Rs 8 lakh term-plan claim, holding the policyholder did not disclose an earlier policy.
- The commission held that a signed proposal form binds the policyholder even if an agent filled it in; the order may be appealed.
Photo: Sun Insurance Office (Life time: c. 1912) / Wikimedia Commons, public domain (cropped). Representational image.
The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld IndusInd Nippon Life Insurance Company's rejection of an Rs 8 lakh term-insurance claim, holding that the policyholder did not disclose an earlier policy with another insurer in the proposal form. In its order of 3 November 2026, the commission set aside a 2017 district forum order that had ruled for the nominee.
What Happened
According to the order, the policyholder took a term plan with a sum insured of Rs 8 lakh, whose cover began on 25 February 2013, from the insurer then called Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company. He died of illness on 2 September 2013. His son, the nominee, filed a claim, which the insurer rejected for suppression of details of other policies.
The Ahmedabad (Rural) district forum allowed the nominee's complaint on 13 July 2017. It held that the proposal form was filled in English by the insurer's advisor, a language the policyholder did not know, so its contents did not bind him. The insurer appealed.
The State Commission found that the proposal form asked for details of other insurance policies and that none were disclosed, though the policyholder had signed a declaration that his answers were accurate. Records from Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance showed he had taken a policy with a sum insured of Rs 2,25,000 whose cover began on 22 February 2013, before this proposal. Relying on a Supreme Court ruling, the commission held that a person who signs a proposal form is bound by its answers even if an agent filled it in, and that the claim was rightly rejected under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938. It made no order as to costs.
What It Means
For policyholders, the ruling is a reminder that every answer in a proposal form counts. If you hold other life policies, list them, and read the form or have it read to you before you sign, even when an agent fills it in. A signed declaration can be used to reject a claim years later.
The order may be appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Policyholders with a grievance can call the National Consumer Helpline on 1915 or file through e-Daakhil.
Source: Consumer commission order
Sources & Citations
- Consumer commission order — Consumer commission