The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a ₹1 crore life insurance death claim after Tata AIA Life Insurance rejected it over alleged non-disclosure of an earlier policy proposal. According to reports from Mint, the commission dismissed Tata AIA's appeal against a District Consumer Commission order directing payment of the claim, along with interest, compensation and litigation costs. The judgment was delivered on 12 June 2026. The case involved Ramdas Vislavath, a retired Superintendent in the Central Excise Department, who purchased a Tata AIA Samporna Raksha policy with a sum assured of ₹1 crore. As reported by Mint, the policy commenced on 31 October 2019 for a 25-year term with an annual premium of ₹58,800. Vislavath died on 25 May 2021 after contracting Covid-19, and his wife Padma Vislavath filed the claim for the ₹1 crore sum assured.
During the investigation, Tata AIA discovered that Vislavath had earlier approached ICICI Prudential Life Insurance for another ₹1 crore policy in July 2019, which had been postponed following medical findings. According to Mint, the insurer relied on a question in its proposal form asking whether any insurance application had ever been declined, postponed or accepted at an extra premium or on modified terms. Vislavath had answered 'No', and the insurer argued this constituted suppression of material facts. Tata AIA rejected the death claim, stating "this amounted to suppression of a material fact and that it would have assessed the risk differently had the earlier proposal been disclosed." However, as reported by Mint, the insurer refunded all the premiums received during the investigation period.
The State Commission rejected Tata AIA's argument, focusing on whether the insurer had proved that Vislavath knowingly concealed the information. As reported by Mint, the commission distinguished the case from previous Supreme Court rulings, noting that "Tata AIA failed to prove that the deceased knew about the earlier postponement before completing its proposal form." Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, explained to ET that "the medical reports alone did not establish that the deceased had been informed of the findings or the postponement." The commission also pointed out that Tata AIA had conducted its own medical examination before issuing the policy, giving the insurer an opportunity to independently assess the risk. The commission referred to Supreme Court precedent stating that details of earlier insurance policies can constitute important information that policyholders must disclose.
The District Commission had directed Tata AIA to pay the ₹1 crore death claim with 9% annual interest from 10 January 2022 until realisation, along with ₹50,000 compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs. According to Mint, the judgment provides for a higher interest rate in case of non-compliance within the specified period. The commission emphasized that the ruling does not mean policyholders can leave previous insurance proposals undisclosed, as such information can be relevant to an insurer's risk assessment. The case serves as a reminder that when an insurer conducts independent medical examination and certifies a proposer as healthy, it cannot then argue that the same information is irrelevant and reject the claim.
