DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is from a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 20 February 2015. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) at Ahmedabad allowed an appeal of the insured - respondent and sustained a claim under a policy of life insurance. This decision has been upheld in revision by the NCDRC. The insurer is hence in appeal.
(3.) On 10 July 2009, the spouse of the respondent took a policy of life insurance from Max New York Life Insurance Co Ltd, for a sum of Rs 11 lakhs. Barely two months thereafter, on 16 September 2009 he submitted a proposal for a life insurance term plan policy of the appellant for an insurance cover of Rs 10 lakhs. Among the questions that the proposer was required to answer in the proposal form was whether he was currently insured or had previously applied for life insurance cover, critical illness cover or accident benefit cover. This query was answered in the negative. Item 17 of the proposal form required a disclosure of: "DETAILS OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES HELD/PROPOSALS APPLIED WITH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES (INCLUDING EXISTING POLICIES WITH RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.)" The information which was required to be furnished under the above head included: (i) name of the life to be assured/proposer; (ii) name of company; (iii) contract/proposal number; (iv) basic sum assured; (v) sum assured under rider; and (vi) year of commencement. The proposer was also required to furnish details in regard to the present status and terms of acceptance and to fill up one of the accompanying boxes namely: (i) declined; (ii) postponed; (iii) rated up; (iv) rejected; (v) in force; (vi) lapsed; and (vii) applied. ;