1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3944 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) No.5001/2019)

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA        APPELLANT(s)

                         VERSUS

MANISH GUPTA RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Leave granted.

The  District  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Forum,

Ambala1 allowed a consumer complaint instituted by the

respondent  on  the  basis  of  a  mediclaim  policy.   The

District Forum directed the appellant to pay a sum of

Rs 2,21,990, together with interest at the rate of 9% per

annum from 29 October 2009, which is the date on which

the claim was repudiated.  Compensation of Rs 10,000 was

awarded towards mental harassment and Rs 10,000 towards

litigation  expenses.   Failing  payment  within  the

stipulated  period,  the  amount  awarded  was  directed  to

carry  interest  at  12%  per  annum.   This  order  of  the

District  Forum  was  affirmed  in  appeal  by  the  State

Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission2.   The  National

Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission3 dismissed  a

1 “District Forum” 2 “SCDRC” 3 “NCDRC”

2

revision filed by the appellant.  This has given rise to

the present appeal.

The respondent obtained a Mediclaim policy from the

appellant.  On 7 June 2008, he had submitted a proposal

form for a Health Plus policy.  The policy was issued on

25 June 2008 under the category of ‘Non-Medical General4'

for a sum of Rs 1,60,000.  The proposal form required a

disclosure  of  health  details  and  medical  information.

Among them was whether the proposer had suffered from

“cardiovascular disease e.g.: Palpitations, heart attack,

stroke,  chest  pain”.   The  proposal  form  contained  a

response in the negative to the above query.   

The  Third  Party  Administrator  received  a  hospital

claim form on 7 August 2009, submitted by the respondent,

which  was  certified  by  a  doctor  at  Fortis  Hospital,

Mohali  on  4  August  2009,  during  which  period  he  had

undergone a Mitral Valve Replacement5 surgery.  The claim

was repudiated by the appellant on 29 October 2009 on the

ground  that  the  respondent  was  suffering  from  a  pre-

existing illness.   

The expression “pre-existing condition” is defined in

the exclusions under the policy in the following terms:

“ii. “Pre-existing  condition”  -  any  medical condition  or  any  related  condition  (e.g. illnesses, symptoms, treatments, surgery, pains) that  have  arisen  at  some  point  prior  to  the

4 “NMG” 5  “MVR”

3

commencement of  this coverage,  irrespective of whether  any  medical  treatment  or  advice  was sought.  Any such condition or related condition about  which  the  Principal  Insured  or  insured dependent  know,  knew  or  could  reasonably  have been assumed to have known, will be deemed to be pre-existing.  The following conditions will also be deemed to be “pre-existing”:

***

ii. Any  Sickness,  illness,  complication  or ailment arising out of or connected to the pre- existing illness.”

The District Forum held in favour of the respondent.

The NCDRC, while affirming the SCDRC, held that though

the treating doctor had recorded, under the column of

'past history', that this was a known case of rheumatic

heart disease since childhood, the doctor had not been

examined in order to prove how the information had been

recorded  in  his  report.   According  to  the  NCDRC,  the

notes of the doctor did not indicate that it had been

recorded on the basis of the information furnished by the

patient.  In this view of the matter, the decision of the

District Forum, as affirmed by the SCDRC, has not been

interfered with.   

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

submitted that the Health-plus policy falls in the NMG

category where the insured is not subjected to a medical

examination before the issuance of the policy.  Hence, it

is a solemn obligation of the proposer to truthfully fill

out the details required by the insurer in the proposal

form on the basis of which the insurer takes a decision

4

in regard to the issuance of the policy.  Hence, it was

urged  that  the  onus  was  on  the  insured  to  provide

material  particulars  of  his  health  since  no  medical

examination was mandated.  In the present case, it has

been submitted that, ex facie, there was a breach on the

part of the insured in suppressing information pertaining

to the fact that he had been suffering from rheumatic

heart disease since childhood.  Hence, on this ground,

the repudiation was sought to be justified.

On the other hand, the respondent, who has appeared

in person, submits that while the information which has

been recorded by the doctor in the column titled 'past

history' would be based on the disclosure made by the

patient, he had merely informed the doctor that he was

suffering  from  fever  and  joint  pains  since  childhood.

The respondent submitted that apart from this, he was not

suffering from any other ailment and, hence, he cannot be

faulted for any noting which has been made by the doctor

in the course of treatment.

We have adverted to the specific disclosure which was

required in the proposal form in regard to whether the

proposer  had  suffered  or  was  suffering  from

cardiovascular disease.  Illustrations of cardiovascular

disease are given in entry 6(c) of para E of the proposal

form.  These are: palpitations, heart attack, stroke and

chest  pain.   These  are  only  illustrations.

Significantly, the declaration by the proposer is in the

5

following terms:

“I Munish Gupta hereby declare that I have read the  proposal  form  fully  and  the  same  was interpreted to me by the agent and also declare that  I  have  understood  the  nature  of  the questions and the importance of disclosing all material  information  while  answering  such questions.  I hereby declare that the foregoing statements  and  answers  to  all  questions, including those in the annexures signed by me, have been given by me after fully understanding the questions and the same are true and complete in every particular and that I have not withheld any information and I do hereby agree and declare that these statements and this declaration shall be the basis of the contract of assurance between me and the Life Insurance Corporation and that if any  untrue  averment  be  contained  therein,  the said contract shall be absolutely null and void and  all  monies  which  shall  have  been  paid  in respect  thereof  shall  stand  forfeited  to  the Corporation...”

Moreover,  non-disclosure  of  any  health  event  is

specifically  set  out  as  a  ground  for  excluding  the

liability  of  the  insurer.   The  terms  of  the  policy

envisage:

“xii. Fraud If any of the Insured or the Claimant shall

make  or advance any claim knowing the same to be false  or  fraudulent  as  regards  amount  or otherwise, this Policy shall immediately become void and all claims or payments in respect of all the insured under this Policy shall be forfeited. Non-disclosure  of  any  health  event  or ailment/condition/sickness/Surgery which occurred prior to the taking of this Policy, whether such condition  is  relevant  or  not  to  the ailment/disease/Surgery for which the Insured is admitted/treated, shall also constitute Fraud.”

6

The declaration which was furnished by the proposer

constituted the basis for the issuance of the policy.

This was particularly so in a case such as the present

where no medical examination has been held, for a policy

under the NMG category.

The  discharge  card  of  the  Department  of

Cardiovascular and  Thoracic Surgery  at Fortis  Hospital

specifically  contains  a  resume  of  the  history  of  the

patient and reads thus:

“Resume of History

H/O Presenting complaints; PATIENT PRESENTED WITH ONE  EPISODE  OF  COUGH  ASSOCIATED  WITH  FEVER  1 MONTH BACK AFTER WHICH HE STARTED TO HAVE PAIN IN HIS  JOINTS  (ANKLE  &  KNEES)  ASSOC  WITH  MUSCLE SPASMS.  PATIENT ALSO HAD SYNCOPAL EPISODES SINCE LAST SIX MONTHS.

Past History: K/C/O RHEUMATIC HEART DISEASE SINCE CHILDHOOD”

(emphasis supplied)

The past history has been adverted to as a  “known

case of rheumatic heart disease since childhood”.  Apart

from the fact that this information would be recorded on

the basis of information divulged by the patient, this

aspect of the recording of the past history by Fortis

Hospital  was  never  in  dispute.   The  treatment  record

indicates that the respondent was operated for MVR.  The

nature of the diagnosis has been reflected as rheumatic

heart disease.  The hospital treatment form is along the

7

same lines.   

A contract of insurance involves utmost good faith.

In  Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs.  New India Assurance Company

Ltd.  6  , this Court has held thus:

“...Thus, it needs little emphasis that when an information on a specific aspect is asked for in the proposal form, an assured is under a solemn obligation to make a true and full disclosure of the information on the subject which is within his  knowledge.  It  is  not  for  the  proposer  to determine whether the information sought for is material for the purpose of the policy or not. Of course, obligation to disclose extends only to facts which are known to the applicant and not to what he ought to have known. The obligation to disclose necessarily depends upon the knowledge one possesses. His opinion of the materiality of that knowledge is of no moment.”

The consumer fora have made a fundamental error in

allowing the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses

in the face of the uncontroverted material on record.

The documentary material indicates that there was a clear

failure on the part of the respondent to disclose that he

had  suffered  from  rheumatic  heart  disease  since

childhood.  The ground for repudiation was in terms of

the exclusions contained in the policy.  The failure of

the  insured  to  disclose  the  past  history  of

cardiovascular  disease  was  a  valid  ground  for

repudiation.

We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the

impugned judgment and order dated 10 December 2018 of the

6 (2009) 8 SCC 316

8

NCDRC.  The complaint filed by the respondent shall stand

dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

.............................J.  (DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD)

.............................J.  (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI APRIL 15, 2019

9

ITEM NO.52               COURT NO.11               SECTION XVII

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3944 OF 2019 (@ SLP(C) No.5001/2019)

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA        APPELLANT(s)

                         VERSUS

MANISH GUPTA RESPONDENT(s)

Date : 15-04-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, AOR Mr. Anmol Tayal, Adv. Mr. vinay Ratnakar, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s) Respondent-in-person                      

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                               O R D E R

Leave granted.

The  Appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed

reportable judgment.  No costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

 (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)      AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)