{"id":342747,"date":"2025-03-03T09:00:42","date_gmt":"2025-03-03T03:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=342747"},"modified":"2025-03-02T23:03:07","modified_gmt":"2025-03-02T17:33:07","slug":"consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/","title":{"rendered":"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

When an individual seeks to obtain life insurance, they are required to make certain disclosures about their personal health and medical history.<\/p>\n

Given that personal health information — critical to evaluating the risk — is very personal and known only to the proposer,1<\/sup><\/a> the law imposes a greater duty on the proposer to disclose all material information2<\/sup><\/a> fully and accurately.3<\/sup><\/a> Insurance contracts are, therefore, governed by the principle of utmost good faith, imposing a solemn duty on the proposer to provide truthful and comprehensive answers to the questions posed in the proposal form as these disclosures are integral to the insurer’s decision-making process regarding the issuance of the policy.4<\/sup><\/a> Any deliberate concealment of material facts at the proposal stage may render the insurance contract voidable at the insurer’s discretion.<\/p>\n

This article examines whether an insurer must establish a nexus between the cause of death and a concealed illness, whilst analysing the principle of materiality of fact.<\/p>\n

Judicial precedents: The nexus debate<\/h2>\n

In 2012, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) affirmed that the presence or absence of a nexus between the pre-insurance health status of the proposer and the cause of his post-insurance death are of no consequence.5<\/sup><\/a> The insurer is not obligated to demonstrate a nexus between the cause of death and the suppressed illness.6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

However, complications arose when the Supreme Court, in its 2015 judgment in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar<\/span> v. LIC<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a>, held that the death of the insured due to ischemic heart disease was unrelated to the concealed pre-existing condition of “lumbar spondylosis with prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID) with sciatica”, and thus, the insurer could not repudiate the claim. The relevant extract deserves to be reproduced for the sake of clarity:<\/p>\n

5. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the ailment that the deceased was suffering from was a life-threatening disease which could or did cause the death of the insured<\/span>. In fact, the clear case is that the deceased died due to ischemic heart disease and also because of myocardial infarction. The concealment of lumbar spondylosis with PID with sciatica persuaded the respondent not to grant the insurance claim.<\/p>\n

6.<\/span> We are of the opinion that the National Commission was in error in denying to the appellants the insurance claim and accepting the repudiation of the claim by the respondent. The death of the insured due to ischemic heart disease and myocardial infarction had nothing to do with his lumbar spondylosis with PID with sciatica. In our considered opinion, since the alleged concealment was not of such a nature as would disentitle the deceased from getting his life insured<\/span>, the repudiation of the claim was incorrect and not justified.8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The above ruling hinted at the necessity of establishing a nexus between the cause of death and the non-disclosure.<\/p>\n

NCDRC’s interpretation post-sulbha<\/h2>\n

Following Sulbha case9<\/sup><\/a><\/span>, the NCDRC repeatedly emphasised the necessity of establishing a nexus between the cause of death and the concealed illness. In numerous cases, the NCDRC relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sulbha case<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a> to overturn repudiations where insurance companies failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the concealed illness and the insured’s cause of death.<\/p>\n

Following is a tabular summary of some notable rulings of the NCDRC (between 2018 to 2024) wherein a clear disconnect between the cause of death and the concealed illness was pivotal in disallowing repudiation of claims on the ground of concealment of material fact:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Sr. No.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Year<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Case title<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Cause of death<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Concealed illness<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Yeellapu Venkata Adibabu<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gastroenteritis<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Paralysis<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Neelam Chopra<\/span> v. LIC<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Cardiorespiratory arrest<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

LL Hansen (Leprosy)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Om Parkash Ahuja<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Rheumatic heart disease<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ovarian cancer<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Reliance Life Insurance Co.<\/span> v. Krishan Kumar<\/span>14<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Electrocution<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hypertension<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

LIC<\/span> v. Jyotsana Rawal<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Heart attack<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Tuberculosis<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

6.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gurbax Singh<\/span> v. Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>16<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Shoulder injury due to accidental fall<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Parkinsonism<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

7.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2018<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

LIC<\/span> v. Sudesh Kumari<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Matter remanded back to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Scdrc)<\/span> to ascertain the cause of death<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Chest pain<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

8.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2019<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Savita Gajanan Patil<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Snake bite<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Pulmonary Koch<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

9.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2022<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Pratibha Bevinal<\/span> v. Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>19<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Accidental death<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Diabetes mellitus<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

10.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2023<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Ettedi Gangamma<\/span>20<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Cardiac arrest<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Carcinoma of lungs<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

11.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2023<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Manjula<\/span> v. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Heart attack<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Delirium tremens<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

12.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2023<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

LIC<\/span> v. Nilam Hetalkumar Patel<\/span>22<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Heart attack<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Depression<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

13.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2024<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Bhuvnesh Gupta<\/span> v. LIC<\/span>23<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Swine flu<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Pregnancy<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

14.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2024<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Neeta Singh<\/span> v. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>24<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Accidental death<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Heart ailments<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

These judgments collectively underscore the NCDRC’s consistent stance that insurers must establish a direct causal link between the alleged concealed condition and the cause of death to justify claim repudiation.<\/p>\n

A departure from the doctrine of uberrima fides<\/h2>\n

The emphasis on the need to establish a nexus between the cause of death and the concealed illness enables insurance proposers to misrepresent or omit material information, as they may, by a stroke of luck or chance, receive the insurance payout if their cause of death happens to be unrelated to the concealed illness. In allowing so, the NCDRC appears to have overlooked the foundational principle that life insurance contracts are governed by the doctrine of uberrima fides (utmost good faith) and, in effect, created an exception to this doctrine.<\/p>\n

To comprehend the flaw in this mandate of establishing a nexus between the cause of death and alleged concealment, it is essential to first understand the doctrine of uberrima fides. The requirement for honest disclosures arises from the fundamental purpose of a life insurance contract — to safeguard the economic value of human life. This valuation is conducted through a process known as “underwriting”. Underwriting, in essence, is the method by which an insurance company determines whether to issue the requested insurance (selection process) and, if so, the terms, conditions, and pricing (classification process).25<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

While underwriting, the insurer collects the proposer’s information vide a questionnaire-based document known as the “proposal form”.26<\/sup><\/a> A specific section of the proposal form seeks the following information pertaining to the proposer’s personal medical history:<\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) any past or existing medical conditions;<\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) information on previous surgeries, hospitalisations, or medical treatments;<\/p>\n

(c<\/span>) disclosure of any physical disabilities or impairments; and<\/p>\n

(d<\/span>) ongoing medications or therapies.<\/p>\n

Thus, information pertaining to the personal medical history of the proposer is “material” as the same affects the prognosis. Based on this information, underwriters segregate lives and charge low premiums for healthy people and high premiums for people with ill-health.27<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

For instance, consider two individuals, Person A<\/span> and Person B<\/span>:<\/p>\n

(i<\/span>) Person A<\/span> is healthy with no prior illnesses.<\/p>\n

(ii<\/span>) Person B<\/span>, diagnosed with cancer before applying for insurance but currently in remission, carries a higher risk due to their medical history.<\/p>\n

Assuming both fully disclose their medical histories, insuring Person A<\/span> poses significantly lower risk compared to Person B<\/span>. Consequently, Person A<\/span> is likely to receive a policy with higher benefits and lower premiums, reflecting their lower risk profile.<\/p>\n

Thus, based on the personal medical history disclosed, the insurer underwrites the risk and determines whether to assume that risk.28<\/sup><\/a> It is not up to the proposer to nitpick which fact is material and which is not. That prerogative lies solely with the insurer. Understandably, if false information is provided to the insurer or material information is concealed, the risk assumed by the insurer will be different from the actual risk.29<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Materiality of fact: The key determinant<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sulbha case<\/span>30<\/sup><\/a>did not require a direct link between the cause of death and the concealed illness. Instead, it emphasised the “materiality” of the fact, where illnesses significantly affecting mortality or life expectancy are deemed material, while those that do not impact death are not considered material.<\/p>\n

The materiality of fact in the context of Sulbha<\/span> ruling31<\/sup><\/a> has been addressed multiple times. In 2019, the NCDRC stated that without evidence from the insurer proving viral hepatitis to be life-threatening, the claim cannot be denied for concealment.32<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, in 2020, the NCDRC rejected jaundice as a valid ground for repudiating a life insurance claim, as it is curable and not permanent.33<\/sup><\/a> That same year, the Supreme Court distinguished Sulbha case<\/span>34<\/sup><\/a>, clarifying that the concealed Hepatitis C in the case was life-threatening, unlike the non-life threatening illness in Sulbha case<\/span>35<\/sup><\/a>, and thus material when assessing the value of human life.36<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The NCDRC, recently, upheld the repudiation of a claim involving concealed carcinoma of the stomach with liver metastasis, noting that Sulbha<\/span> ruling37<\/sup><\/a> was context-specific and applied only to non-life threatening conditions. It clarified that Sulbha case<\/span>38<\/sup><\/a> does not apply when the concealed condition is materially significant to the insurer’s risk assessment.39<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The ruling in Sulbha case<\/span>40<\/sup><\/a> dealt specifically with a non-life threatening condition — lumbar spondylosis with PID with sciatica, which did not contribute to or cause the death of the insured. This limited precedent set by the Sulbha<\/span> case<\/span>41<\/sup><\/a> applies narrowly to instances where the concealed illness does not significantly impact the insured’s life expectancy or cause of death. It does not extend to cases involving materially significant conditions that have a clear bearing on the risk assessment, such as cancers or chronic diseases that are directly related to mortality risk.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

The requirement of establishing a nexus between the cause of death and concealed illnesses risks undermining the doctrine of utmost good faith, the bedrock of life insurance contracts. Courts should focus on the materiality of the concealed facts in assessing risk and underwriting policies. By doing so, the integrity of insurance contracts can be preserved, ensuring fairness for both insurers and policy-holders while safeguarding the long-term viability of the insurance ecosystem.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Senior Associate<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> Lord Mansfield in Carter<\/span> v. Boehm<\/span>, (1766) 3 Burr 1905.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, Regn. 2(d<\/span>), Exp. “Material information” means all important, essential and relevant information sought by insurer in the proposal form and other connected documents to enable him to take informed decision in the context of underwriting the risk.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Manmohan Nanda<\/span> v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, (2022) 4 SCC 582.<\/a><\/p>\n

4.<\/a> LIC<\/span> v. G.M. Channabasamma<\/span>, (1991) 1 SCC 357<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> LIC<\/span> v. Kusum Patro<\/span>, 2012 SCC OnLine NCDRC 129<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> LIC of India<\/span> v. Ramamani Patra<\/span>, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1741<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

8.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561, 562.<\/a><\/p>\n

9.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

10.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

11.<\/a> 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1879.<\/a><\/p>\n

12.<\/a> 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1503.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1800.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 950.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 488.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 161.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1825.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1040.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 547.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 605.<\/a><\/p>\n

21.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1646.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1731.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1247.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1246.<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Principles and Practice of Life Insurance<\/span>, (Edn. 2020, ISBN 978-81-8441-119-9).<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002, Regn. 2(d<\/span>). A “Proposal form” means a form to be filled in by the proposer for insurance, for furnishing all material information required by the insurer in respect of a risk, in order to enable the insurer to decide whether to accept or decline, to undertake the risk, and in the event of acceptance of the risk, to determine the rates, terms and conditions of a cover to be granted.<\/p>\n

27.<\/a> Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Principles and Practice of Life Insurance<\/span>, (Edn. 2020, ISBN 978-81-8441-119-9).<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> (2019) 6 SCC 175.<\/p>\n

29.<\/a> (2009) 8 SCC 316.<\/p>\n

30.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

31.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

32.<\/a> 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 671.<\/p>\n

33.<\/a> 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 397.<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

35.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

36.<\/a> Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Dalbir Kaur<\/span>, (2021) 13 SCC 553.<\/a><\/p>\n

37.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

38.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

39.<\/a> Kamla<\/span> v. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1245.<\/p>\n

40.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n

41.<\/a> (2021) 13 SCC 561.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Namrata Chandorkar*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":342748,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[79252,45668,79253,11241,79254,44803,17271,3095,79255,79256],"class_list":["post-342747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-absence-of-nexus","tag-cause-of-death","tag-concealed-facts","tag-consumer-protection","tag-life-insurance-claim","tag-national-commission","tag-national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission","tag-NCDRC","tag-prolapsed-intervertebral-disc","tag-proposal-form"],"yoast_head":"\nConsumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"When an individual seeks to obtain life insurance, they are required to make certain disclosures about their personal health and medical history\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"When an individual seeks to obtain life insurance, they are required to make certain disclosures about their personal health and medical history\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-03T03:30:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shared-image-2025-03-02T225800.550.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"533\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/\",\"name\":\"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shared-image-2025-03-02T225800.550.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-03T03:30:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"When an individual seeks to obtain life insurance, they are required to make certain disclosures about their personal health and medical history\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shared-image-2025-03-02T225800.550.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shared-image-2025-03-02T225800.550.webp\",\"width\":800,\"height\":533,\"caption\":\"Consumer Protection\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection | SCC Times","description":"When an individual seeks to obtain life insurance, they are required to make certain disclosures about their personal health and medical history","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection","og_description":"When an individual seeks to obtain life insurance, they are required to make certain disclosures about their personal health and medical history","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-03-03T03:30:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shared-image-2025-03-02T225800.550.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/","name":"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shared-image-2025-03-02T225800.550.webp","datePublished":"2025-03-03T03:30:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"When an individual seeks to obtain life insurance, they are required to make certain disclosures about their personal health and medical history","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shared-image-2025-03-02T225800.550.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shared-image-2025-03-02T225800.550.webp","width":800,"height":533,"caption":"Consumer Protection"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/03\/consumer-protection-absence-of-nexus-between-cause-of-death-and-concealed-facts-grounds-for-life-insurance-claim-rejection\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Consumer Protection | Absence of Nexus Between Cause of Death and Concealed Facts: Grounds for Life Insurance Claim Rejection"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/shared-image-2025-03-02T225800.550.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":321158,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/01\/repudiation-life-insurance-claim-by-aviva-insurance-upeld-ncdrc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":342747,"position":0},"title":"NCDRC upholds repudiation of claim by Aviva Life Insurance due to violation of ubberima fidei principle by the insured","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The wife of the Deceased Life Assured had filed claims as the nominee of her husband\u2019s life insurance policies. However, the claim was rejected as the DLA failed to disclose material facts while availing the policies, thereby violating the principle of ubberima fidei (utmost good faith)","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/National-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/National-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/National-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/National-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249811,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/death-insurance-claim\/","url_meta":{"origin":342747,"position":1},"title":"NCDRC | In a case of death insurance claim, can police investigation be replaced by private agency investigation engaged by insurance company? Commission spells out","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Dinesh Singh (Presiding Member) addresses matter regarding claiming of insurance cover. Instant appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Factual Matrix Late Jai Prakash, husband\/father of the Complainant met\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":348642,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/23\/the-principle-of-uberrima-fides-and-the-evolving-judicial-approach-to-non-disclosure-of-lifestyle-diseases\/","url_meta":{"origin":342747,"position":2},"title":"The Principle of Uberrima Fides and the Evolving Judicial Approach to Non-Disclosure of Lifestyle Diseases","author":"Editor","date":"May 23, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Utkarsh Pandit*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Principle of Uberrima Fides","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Principle-of-Uberrima-Fides.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Principle-of-Uberrima-Fides.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Principle-of-Uberrima-Fides.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Principle-of-Uberrima-Fides.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6773,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/07\/ncdrc-held-repudiation-of-claim-by-lic-on-the-ground-of-suppression-of-material-facts-proper\/","url_meta":{"origin":342747,"position":3},"title":"Repudiation of claim by LIC on the ground of suppression of material facts held proper","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 7, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While upholding the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by LIC on the ground of suppression of material facts, as proper, NCDRC observed that a contract between the parties falls in the category of contract uberrimae fidei, meaning a contract of utmost good\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"","block_context":{"text":"Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308060,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/30\/insurance-policy-issued-after-inspection-objections-misrepresentation-non-disclosure-cannot-raised-structure-in-fire-ncdrc\/","url_meta":{"origin":342747,"position":4},"title":"Policy issued after inspection, objections of misrepresentation or non-disclosure cannot be raised after structure was gutted in fire: NCDRC","author":"Ridhi","date":"November 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"NCDRC concluded that the Insurance Company failed to establish any misrepresentation or non-disclosure of material facts while obtaining the insurance policy.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"national consumer disputes redressal commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/national-consumer-disputes-redressal-commission.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6382,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/02\/18\/repudiation-of-claim-on-ground-that-complainant-failed-to-prove-that-cause-of-death-was-a-result-of-accidental-injuries-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":342747,"position":5},"title":"Repudiation of claim on ground that complainant failed to prove that cause of death was a result of accidental injuries, upheld","author":"Sucheta","date":"February 18, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): NCDRC has upheld a repudiation of claim by an insurance company on the ground that complainant failed to prove that the cause of death of the insured was the injury caused by the accident. Earlier, complainant\u2019s mother obtained insurance cover from HDFC Ergo General\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"","block_context":{"text":"Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=342747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342747\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/342748"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=342747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=342747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=342747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}