1 day ago
Kolkata Commission Orders Insurer to Pay Mother’s Death Claim
A woman bought life insurance worth Rs 1 crore and paid her first yearly premium.
She became ill and died in February 2023, and her son asked the insurer to pay the claim.
The insurer rejected it, first saying some documents were false and later saying she had not disclosed illnesses.
The consumer commission said the insurer did not provide evidence for these claims.
It also noted that the insurer did not take part in the case.
The commission decided the policy was still in force when the woman died.
It ordered the insurer to pay Rs 99.41 lakh, plus Rs 50,000 in compensation and Rs 10,000 for legal costs.
The Kolkata District Consumer Commission ordered IndiaFirst Life Insurance to pay a nominee Rs 99.41 lakh on a rejected Rs 1 crore death claim.
It also awarded Rs 50,000 in compensation and Rs 10,000 in litigation costs.
The insurer first alleged forged or tampered financial and occupation documents, then later argued that pre-existing illnesses had not been disclosed.
The commission found no evidence supporting either allegation and noted that the illness argument was absent from the original repudiation letter.
The insurer did not appear or file a written response; the commission held that the policy was in force when the policyholder died.
- Who
- The deceased policyholder’s son, IndiaFirst Life Insurance, and the Kolkata District Consumer Commission.
- What
- The commission ordered the insurer to pay Rs 99.41 lakh, Rs 50,000 in compensation and Rs 10,000 in litigation costs.
- Where
- Kolkata, before the Kolkata District Consumer Commission.
- When
- The policyholder died on February 1, 2023; the order is reported as dated September 25, 2026.
- Why
- The commission found the insurer’s rejection arbitrary and unsupported by evidence, and held that the policy was in force on the date of death.
Nominee’s Position
Insurer’s Allegations
Claim validity
Nominee’s Position
The son argued that the policy remained valid because his mother died within the grace period after the renewal premium fell due.
Insurer’s Allegations
The insurer rejected the death claim, initially describing it as fraudulent.
Documents and medical history
Nominee’s Position
The son disputed the allegations, saying the illnesses developed around his mother’s final hospitalisation.
Insurer’s Allegations
The insurer alleged that financial and occupation documents were forged or tampered with, and later alleged that pre-existing diseases had not been disclosed.
Evidence
Nominee’s Position
The son maintained that the claim had been wrongly rejected.
Insurer’s Allegations
The commission recorded that the insurer did not appear, file a written response or provide evidence supporting its allegations.
Key facts
- Insurer
- IndiaFirst Life Insurance Company Ltd.
- Sum assured
- Rs 1 crore
- First annual premium
- Rs 58,509.12, paid January 23, 2022
- Date of death
- February 1, 2023
- Claim awarded
- Rs 99.41 lakh
- Additional award
- Rs 50,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 litigation costs
- Renewal premium due
- January 24, 2023; the commission found the policy was in force when she died within the grace period
- Commission
- President Kallol Chattopadhyay and member Udayan Roy
Quotes
Kolkata District Consumer Commission
The consumer commission that adjudicated the insurance dispute
“There is no material, and no evidence, to show either that the terminal ailments pre-dated the proposal or that the deceased deliberately suppressed any material fact with knowledge and intent. The burden being on the insurer, and the insurer having led no evidence, this ground also fails…the repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Party is held to be arbitrary and unjustified, and amounts to deficiency in service.”
indianexpress.com
financialexpress.com
“The plea of pre-existing disease fares no better. It is significant that this plea was not taken in the repudiation letter at all, and surfaced for the first time only in reply to the legal notice. A repudiation that shifts its ground in this manner, adding a fresh and inconsistent basis at a belated stage, is itself an indicator of afterthought and cannot be countenanced.”
financialexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Haryana Commission Orders Insurer to Pay Son Rs 5 Lakh
Chhattisgarh Commission Orders Insurer to Pay Heart Claim
Telangana Commission Awards Widow Rs 5 Lakh After Drowning Claim
Hyderabad Consumer Commission Orders Insurer to Pay Rs 5.60 Lakh
Punjab Commission Orders Insurer To Pay Denied Knee Claim
SBI Delayed Premium Leaves Accident Victim Uninsured, Commission Orders Payout
Adhikari Attends Historic India-Brazil Friendly in Kolkata
Brazil Leads India 2-0 at Halftime After Estevao, Pedro Goals
Empty Seats Greet Vinicius Jr and Brazil in Kolkata Friendly
Bodies of Two Jharkhand Yoga Instructors Killed in Vietnam Returned
Kolkata Film Institute Classes Suspended After Campus Violence
