Archive · 29 Aug 2026
Kurnool Commission Orders HDFC ERGO To Pay ₹1 Crore
Gandla Mulaiah had an insurance policy worth ₹1 crore.
He died in a road accident while the policy was active.
His nominee, Gandla Prameela, asked the insurance company to pay the money.
HDFC ERGO refused, saying that Mulaiah had given incorrect income information.
The consumer commission reviewed police, medical and other official records.
It said the insurer did not prove that the income information was deliberately false or important to the policy decision.
The commission ordered the insurer to pay the full claim.
It also ordered extra money for interest, mental distress and legal expenses.
The Kurnool District Consumer Commission ordered HDFC ERGO to pay a ₹1 crore accidental death claim.
Gandla Mulaiah died in a road accident on July 28, 2025, while his policy was valid.
His nominee, Gandla Prameela, filed the claim under the Koti Suraksha insurance policy.
HDFC ERGO rejected the claim, alleging that Mulaiah had concealed or overstated his income.
The commission also awarded 9% annual interest, ₹25,000 for mental agony and ₹10,000 in litigation costs.
- Who
- The Kurnool District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, policyholder Gandla Mulaiah and nominee Gandla Prameela.
- What
- The commission ordered HDFC ERGO to pay a ₹1 crore accidental death claim, 9% annual interest, ₹25,000 for mental agony and ₹10,000 in litigation expenses.
- When
- Mulaiah died on July 28, 2025; HDFC ERGO repudiated the claim on October 23, 2025; the commission issued its order in Consumer Complaint No. 173/2025.
- Where
- Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh.
- Why
- The commission found that the insurer failed to provide credible evidence that Mulaiah deliberately gave false or materially misleading income information.
Nominee and Commission
Insurer’s Position
Validity of the claim
Nominee and Commission
The nominee sought the accidental death benefit, and the commission found that official records established Mulaiah’s death in a road accident while the policy was valid.
Insurer’s Position
HDFC ERGO repudiated the claim, alleging that Mulaiah had concealed or overstated his income details when obtaining the policy.
Evidence of misrepresentation
Nominee and Commission
The commission said an investigation report or income discrepancy alone did not prove fraud or deliberate suppression of a material fact.
Insurer’s Position
The insurer relied on the alleged discrepancy in Mulaiah’s income particulars to reject the substantial claim, but the commission found that credible supporting evidence had not been produced.
Legal responsibility
Nominee and Commission
The commission held that repudiating the claim was unjustified and amounted to deficiency in service, ordering payment with interest and compensation.
Insurer’s Position
The insurer’s rejection was based on its contention that the policyholder’s income information was inaccurate, though the commission did not accept that basis as sufficiently established.
- Claim amount
- ₹1 crore
- Policy
- Koti Suraksha insurance policy
- Accident date
- July 28, 2025
- Annual interest
- 9% on the claim amount
- Mental agony compensation
- ₹25,000
- Litigation expenses
- ₹10,000
- Case
- Consumer Complaint No. 173/2025