Home » News » Insurer’s Duty to Prove Insured Concealed Material Facts in Insurance Law Cases

In Mahakali Sujatha v. Future Generali India Life Insurance, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s insurance claim ruling that the insurer failed to prove the insured concealed information about existing policies. The Court distinguished the case from previous judgments noting the absence of admission by the insured. As a result, the insurer was directed to pay the claim amounts totalling Rs. 17,10,000/- and interest at 7% per annum.


Mahakali Sujatha v. The Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited & Another

Civil Appeal No. 3821 of 2024

Supreme Court

Coram:  Justices BV Nagarathna and AG Masih


  • The current civil appeal has been lodged by the plaintiff who is the daughter of the deceased insured individual, Sri Siriveri Venkateswarlu.
  • She is also the nominee under the life insurance policies in question belonging to her late father.
  • The appellant challenges the order dated July 22, 2019, issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1268 of 2019 denying the insurance claim of the appellant.


Before the Supreme Court, the insurance company relied on the judgment of Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod arguing that they rightfully repudiated the insured’s claim because the Supreme Court upheld the repudiation of the claim due to the suppression of the fact of other existing insurance policies in the Rekhaben case.

In contrast, the appellant argued that the insurer failed to prove whether any other policy existed when the insured purchased the new policy from them. The judgment authored by Justice BV Nagarathna found merit in the appellant’s argument holding that the denial of the insurance claim lacked a basis because the insurer failed to prove whether the insured had suppressed information about existing policies with other insurance companies while entering into contracts with them.

Although the insurer cited the Rekhaben case to support the repudiation of the insurance claim, the court disagreed distinguishing it from the present case. In the Rekhaben case, there was an admission of the suppression of previous policies by the insured whereas in the present case, there was no such admission.


The Supreme Court upheld the insurance claim that was initially repudiated by the insurance company due to the insured’s alleged suppression of existing policies. The Court noted that the insurance company failed to prove that the insured had other policies when taking out a policy with them. Consequently, the insurer/respondent was directed to pay the insurance claim under both policies to the appellant. The amounts totalled Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 9,60,000/- respectively. Additionally, the insurer was instructed to pay interest at a rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until the actual realization of the amount.

We welcome your comments & feedback

Related News

error: Content is protected !!