A widow woman was fighting a long legal battle for the last several years for her two life insurance policies. This fight has now ended after many years. Accepting one of the two claims of the woman, an amount of Rs 2 crore will be given along with interest. Whereas the second claim of the same amount has been rejected by the court. It is important for every insurance holder to know about this case.

Both insurances were rejected
This case was pending since 2017, in which the policy holder i.e. the woman’s husband had died due to septic shock. The deceased’s wife had approached Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Company for a total sum insured of Rs 4 crore under two different policies, when both the claims were rejected by the company. For this, the insurance company argued that the deceased had not given complete information about his existing insurance coverage while applying for the policy. After this the entire matter was investigated in detail and the matter became a legal battle.

Shortcomings did not become the basis of the case
When this matter became a legal battle, many shortcomings came to light. However, these shortcomings did not become the basis of this case. In fact, the first policy issued in 2014 was examined. During this period, the Commission learned that the insured had not given exact details of all the existing policies, but still there was a considerable amount of information in it. According to the Commission, these shortcomings were not intentional. Not only this, the insured person had also got his medical test done before issuing the policy, which shows that the health of the applicant was also tested.

important cause of death
The cause of death of the insured also played an important role in the investigation of the case. The commission found that the septic shock was not related to any of the insurer’s past medical issues. This also helped the Commission in taking the decision. The insurer was directed to pay Rs 2 crore, along with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum.

Why was the second policy rejected?
The second policy taken by the deceased in 2015 was viewed differently. In this, the Commission found that information about many high value policies held by the insured was not given at all in the proposal form. This was not considered a minor mistake. An important point in the decision was that every insurance application is independent. The information contained in previous policies does not automatically apply to subsequent policies. Each proposal form must contain complete details of the applicant’s current financial and insurance situation.

By not providing adequate coverage details, the deceased person failed to satisfy this requirement. Due to which the Commission did not find any error in the insurer’s decision to reject the second claim of Rs 2 crore.