The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld a District Forum order directing Tata AIA Life Insurance to pay a ₹1 crore death claim with 9% annual interest to the nominee of a deceased policyholder. The decision comes after the commission ruled that the insurer failed to prove that the policyholder had consciously suppressed an earlier postponed insurance proposal.
Case Background
-
Policyholder: Ramdas Vislavath, a retired Superintendent in the Central Excise Department.
-
Policy Details: Purchased a Tata AIA Sampoorna Raksha term plan (₹1 crore sum assured, 25-year term) on October 31, 2019.
-
Claim Trigger: Vislavath passed away on May 25, 2021, due to COVID-19 complications. His wife, Padma Vislavath, filed the claim.
-
Insurer’s Repudiation: Because death occurred within two years of policy issuance, Tata AIA investigated and discovered Vislavath had applied for a ₹1 crore policy with ICICI Prudential in July 2019, which was postponed following medical findings (Concentric LVH).
-
Reason for Rejection: Tata AIA cited non-disclosure under the proposal form query regarding previously declined or postponed policies, canceling the policy ab initio.
Why the Commission Dismissed Tata AIA’s Appeal
| Legal / Fact-Finding Point | Commission’s Rationale |
| Lack of Proof of Knowledge | The insurer produced ICICI Prudential’s postponement records, but failed to prove that the postponement or medical reports were ever communicated to Vislavath before he applied for the Tata AIA policy. |
| Absence of Conscious Suppression | Rejection of a claim requires proof of wilful concealment. Suspicion of what the insured “must have known” cannot replace concrete evidence. |
| Independent Medical Assessment | Tata AIA conducted its own independent medical examination prior to issuing the policy in October 2019, giving it full opportunity to assess risk. |
| Distinction from Precedents | The commission distinguished the Supreme Court’s Rekhaben Rathod (2019) ruling, noting that while previous proposal history is material, the insurer must first establish that the insured was aware of the prior outcome. |
Final Order & Next Steps
-
Financial Relief: Tata AIA must pay the ₹1 crore sum assured along with 9% annual interest (calculated from January 10, 2022, until realization), ₹50,000 in compensation, and ₹10,000 in litigation costs.
-
Further Appeal: Tata AIA maintained that the non-disclosure of medical findings was material to risk assessment and announced plans to challenge the State Commission’s order before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in New Delhi.
