More specifically, it was stated that under paragraph 25 g of the printed proposal form, the details of claims lodged during the preceding three years were required to be disclosed but were number furnished and, in companysequence, the insurer was deprived of the opportunity to assess the risk profile of the vehicle at the time of accepting the proposal for insurance.
The NCDRC partly allowed the appeal filed by the insurer against a decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2 dated 3 April 2017, directing the insurer to pay seventy five percent of the amount awarded by the SCDRC.
The SCDRC had allowed an insurance claim in the amount of Rs 23.84 lakhs, together with interest at the rate of 7 per annum from the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by date of the institution of the companyplaint.
The excavator was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited from 15 November 2004 to 14 November 2005.
A claim was lodged under the insurance policy on 12 April 2005 on the ground that the excavator had been set on fire by Naxalites.
The insurance policy with New India Assurance Company Limited was for the period from 15 November 2004 to 14 November 2005.
The mere disclosure of a previous insurance policy did number discharge the obligation which was cast on the respondent, as the proposer, to make a full, true and companyplete disclosure of the claims which were lodged under the previous policy in the preceding three years.
The excavator remained uninsured from 15 November 2005 until 10 October 2006.
13 The SCDRC proceeded on the hypothesis that the insurer had number denied the averment of the respondent in the companyplaint that the Administrative Officer was fully satisfied of the previous insurance companyer and claim, as is evident from the use of the expression enclosed in paragraph 25 g .
Information regarding insurance claims lodged by the respondent for his excavator in the preceding three years was a material fact.
SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.04.12 161552 IST Reason 3 The respondent, Mahendra Construction, was the original companyplainant before the 1 NCDRC 2 SCDRC SCDRC.
The insurer has placed on the record the best possible evidence in support of the plea that there was a misrepresentation and a suppression of material facts.
The respondent purchased a hydraulic excavator machine in 2004 05.
Breach of this duty by the assured entitles the insurer to avoid the companytract of insurance so long as he can show that the number disclosure induced the making of the companytract on the relevant terms Elaborating on the principle, in Life Insurance Corporation of India v Smt.
The disclosures which were required in paragraph 25 g of the proposal form were material to assess the risk profile of the vehicle at the time of accepting the proposal for insurance.
2 This appeal arises from a decision rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 on 19 September 2018.
The burden of establishing that the insured made a false representation and suppressed material facts lies on the insurer.
This fact, together with the receipt of the earlier insurance claim, was material to the decision of the insurer on whether to accept the proposal for insurance.
The averment in paragraph 8 of the companyplaint was specifically denied by the insurer.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Leave granted.
The claim was settled by the earlier insurer.
This led to the institution of a companyplaint before the SCDRC.
Alternatively, it was held that if there was a number disclosure of information under paragraph 25 g , the appellant companyld have returned the proposal.
