MAHAKALI SUJATHA versus THE BRANCH MANAGER, FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 10-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 724 : 2024 INSC 296
Mahakali Sujatha 
v. 
The Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance 
Company Limited & Another
(Civil Appeal No. 3821 of 2024)
10 April 2024
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The present civil appeal has been filed by the complainant, who 
is the daughter of the insured-deceased, who is also the nominee 
under the subject life insurance policies of her late father. The 
controversy in the present case pertains to the factum of repudiation 
of the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground of the 
material suppression of information regarding the previous policies 
allegedly held by the insured-deceased, while taking the life 
insurance policy from the respondent insurance company. Whether, 
the respondent insurance company herein was correct in repudiating 
the claim of the appellant on the ground of suppression of material 
information pertaining to the existing policies with other insurers.
Headnotes
Insurance Act, 1938 – s.45, before the 2014 amendment 
– Evidence Act, 1872 – Burden of proof – Onus of proof – 
Repudiation of insurance claim of the complainant on the 
ground of the material suppression of information regarding 
the previous policies – Consumer complaint filed – The 
District Commission allowed the complaint on the ground 
that no documentary evidence was available to show that 
deceased-insured had taken various insurance policies from 
other companies – The State Commission upheld the order of 
the District Commission – However, the NCDRC observed that 
the respondent insurance company had given details of the 
aforesaid policies by way of affidavit and the same was not 
denied by the complainant in her affidavit – Therefore, NCDRC 
concluded that deceased insured had withheld information 
in respect of several insurance policies which he had taken 
from other insurers – Correctness:
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
725
Mahakali Sujatha v. The Branch Manager, Future Generali  
India Life Insurance Company Limited & another
Held: As per the language and interpretation of Section 45, the 
insurer cannot question the policy after the expiry of the time 
period and if it does, then the burden rests on the insurer to 
establish materiality of the fact suppressed and the knowledge 
of the insured about such suppression, so that the repudiation 
of the claim could be justified by the insurer – In the present 
case, the onus was on the insurer to show that the insured had 
fraudulently given false information and the said information was 
related to a material fact – The respondent insurance company 
has produced no documentary evidence whatsoever before 
the District Forum to prove its allegation that the insured had 
taken multiple insurance policies from different companies and 
had suppressed the same – Before the State Commission, the 
respondent had provided a tabulation of the 15 different policies 
taken by the insured-deceased – However, the said tabulation 
was not supported by any other documentary evidence, like 
the policy documents of these other policies, or pleadings in 
courts, or such other corroborative evidence – The NCDRC had 
accepted the averment of the respondents, without demanding 
corroborative documentary evidence in support of the said fact 
– The approach adopted by the NCDRC was not correct – The 
cardinal principle of burden of proof in the law of evidence 
is that “he who asserts must prove”, which means that if the 
respondents herein had asserted that the insured had already 
taken fifteen more policies, then it was incumbent on them 
to prove this fact by leading necessary evidence – The onus 
cannot be shifted on the appellant to deal with issues that have 
merely been alleged by the respondents, without producing any 
evidence to support that allegation – The respondents have 
merely provided a tabulation of information about the other 
policies held by the insured-deceased – The table produced is 
incomplete and contradictory as far as the date of birth of the 
insured is concerned – Therefore, the NCDRC could not have 
relied upon the said tabulation and put the onus on the appellant 
to deal with that issue in her complaint and thereby considered 
the said averment as proved or proceeded to prove the stance 
of the opposite party – The repudiation of the policy was without 
any basis or justification – Thus, the impugned order passed by 
the NCDRC set aside. [Paras 16,17, 48, 49

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.