Archive · 4 Oct 2026
Haryana Commission Orders Insurer to Pay Son Rs 5 Lakh
A woman had a life insurance policy and later died.
Her son, who was named to receive the insurance money, asked the company to pay.
The company refused, saying she had hidden an earlier illness.
Her son took the dispute to a consumer commission in Panipat after a legal notice did not resolve it.
The commission said the company had not shown documents proving she had that illness when the policy was issued.
It ruled that the company could not reject the claim on that unsupported allegation.
The insurer was ordered to pay Rs 5 lakh.
It must also pay Rs 11,000 for the distress caused and Rs 5,500 for legal costs.
The Panipat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered a private life insurer to pay a nominee Rs 5 lakh after his mother’s death.
The insurer had rejected the claim, alleging that the woman concealed a pre-existing illness when taking out the policy.
The commission said the insurer had provided no medical or other documents proving a previous illness.
It also ordered Rs 11,000 in compensation for harassment and mental agony, plus Rs 5,500 in litigation expenses.
The order was dated September 14; the articles do not state the year.
- Who
- The deceased woman’s son, as nominee, and a private life insurer.
- What
- The Panipat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the insurer to pay Rs 5 lakh, Rs 11,000 in compensation and Rs 5,500 in litigation expenses.
- When
- The commission’s order was dated September 14; the year is not stated. The woman died on May 15, 2019.
- Where
- Panipat, Haryana.
- Why
- The commission found that the insurer had not produced evidence to support its allegation that the woman concealed a pre-existing illness.
Insurer’s position
Commission’s findings
Alleged non-disclosure
Insurer’s position
The insurer argued that the woman concealed important health information when applying for the policy, making the policy void and the claim not payable.
Commission’s findings
The commission said the insurer had not placed any document on record proving that the woman had a previous illness when the policy was issued.
Claim rejection
Insurer’s position
The insurer maintained that the claim was not payable and alleged that the policy had effectively been procured to defraud it.
Commission’s findings
The commission found the insurer could not legally reject the claim without evidence supporting the alleged concealment and ordered payment to the nominee.
- Insured amount ordered
- Rs 5,00,000
- Compensation
- Rs 11,000 for harassment and mental agony
- Litigation expenses
- Rs 5,500
- Woman’s date of death
- May 15, 2019
- Premium received
- Rs 4,755
- Order date
- September 14; year not stated
- Commission’s finding
- The insurer produced no medical or other documents proving a previous illness at the time the policy was issued.
