NCDRC Orders Bharti AXA to Pay ₹25 Lakh Death Claim
•Blank Column Not Concealment, Rules Consumer Commission
•Insurance Claim Rejection Overturned: Relief for Policyholders
•Bharti AXA Pulled Up for Arbitrary Claim Repudiation
Unmesh Gujarathi
Sprouts News Exclusive
Contact: +91 9322755098
Sprouts News Exclusive
Contact: +91 9322755098
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that leaving a column blank in an insurance proposal form cannot be treated as concealment. It directed Bharti AXA Life Insurance to pay a ₹25 lakh death claim with 9% interest, strengthening consumer rights against arbitrary repudiation of insurance claims.
In a landmark decision reinforcing consumer rights, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that leaving a column blank in an insurance proposal form does not amount to giving a false answer. The commission directed Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd to release a ₹25 lakh death claim with 9% annual interest to the complainant’s legal heirs.
NCDRC Clarifies Legal Position on Blank Columns
The ruling, delivered on 11 August 2025 by a bench comprising Dr Inderjit Singh and Dr Sudhir Kumar Jain, emphasized that insurers cannot repudiate claims merely because a column in the proposal form was left blank.
The bench noted, “Had this information been material, the insurance company ought to have insisted on filling these details before issuing the policy. There appears to be no wilful intention on the part of the deceased insured to conceal or suppress any information.”
The commission also highlighted that the entire form was type-filled, likely by an agent or official of Bharti AXA, making the insurer responsible for ensuring all columns were duly completed.
Case Background: Bharti AXA vs. Chhoti Devi’s Family
The case stemmed from a rejected claim filed by Chhoti Devi, following the death of her son Padam Soni. Soni had purchased a ₹25 lakh life insurance policy in December 2015, paying an annual premium of ₹10,900. He passed away due to a heart attack in January 2017.
When his mother filed a claim, Bharti AXA repudiated it on 8 June 2017, alleging concealment of existing policies. The Rajasthan State Consumer Commission upheld the insurer’s decision in March 2021, prompting the family to approach NCDRC after Devi’s death.
Insurer Already Knew of Existing Policies
During the appeal, the complainants argued that Bharti AXA had itself issued three policies to Soni earlier, including two on the same day in December 2015. The insurer therefore already possessed full knowledge of his policy history.
However, Bharti AXA maintained that Soni had answered “No” to the question on existing or previous policies. The appellants countered this claim, pointing out that the “No” response was instead to a different question—whether any insurer had declined, postponed, or issued substandard policies.
According to the Sprouts News Investigation Team (SIT) review of case documents, this misinterpretation was overlooked by the state commission while rejecting the claim.
NCDRC Strengthens Consumer Protection in Insurance
In setting aside the earlier state commission order, NCDRC reaffirmed that allegations of concealment must be based on facts exclusively within the insured’s knowledge. Since Bharti AXA already had record of Soni’s prior policies, the ground of concealment was invalid.
The commission’s order stated, “Responsibility lay with the insurer’s agent, who digitally filled the proposal form. Leaving a column blank cannot be equated with furnishing a false answer.”
Accordingly, Bharti AXA has been directed to pay the assured sum of ₹25 lakh within 45 days, along with 9% annual interest from the date of claim filing.
Implications for Policyholders and Insurers
The Sprouts News Investigation Team (SIT) observes that this ruling has far-reaching implications for both policyholders and insurers. For consumers, it strengthens protection against arbitrary claim rejections. For insurers, it serves as a reminder to ensure diligence while processing proposal forms.
Legal experts believe this verdict will influence future disputes, reinforcing that consumer protection and fair play in insurance contracts must take precedence over technical loopholes.
