ICU Doctor's Widow Wins ₹50 Lakh After Court Says HDFC Life Wrongly Rejected Insurance Claim

Key Points:

• HDFC Life ordered to pay ₹50 lakh insurance claim to widow.

• Claim was rejected over undisclosed existing policies.

• Consumer court found the proposal form was ambiguous.

• Insurer must also pay compensation, costs, and interest if delayed.

A consumer court in Andhra Pradesh has ordered HDFC Life to pay a ₹50 lakh insurance claim to the widow of an ICU doctor who died on February 16, 2024, ruling in a June 1, 2026 order that the insurer could not reject the claim based on an ambiguous proposal form.

Bonthala Sindhuja has won her legal battle against HDFC Life after the Kurnool District Consumer Commission ruled that the insurer wrongly denied her ₹50 lakh insurance claim following the death of her husband, Dr. G. Sravan Kumar.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, held that HDFC Life's proposal form did not clearly ask applicants to disclose life insurance policies purchased from other insurers. Because the insurer itself drafted the form, the Commission said it could not later rely on that ambiguity to reject a genuine claim.

The case concerns Dr. G. Sravan Kumar, an anaesthesiologist working in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at Aadya Multi Speciality Hospital in Kurnool.

Dr. Kumar had purchased an HDFC Life Click 2 Protect Super Policy with a sum assured of ₹50 lakh, which came into effect on October 15, 2022. His wife, Bonthala Sindhuja, was the nominee under the policy.

On February 16, 2024, Dr. Kumar suffered a sudden cardiac arrest while on duty and passed away. Following his death, Sindhuja filed a claim under the life insurance policy.

However, HDFC Life rejected the claim, stating that Dr. Kumar had not disclosed two existing life insurance policies issued by Bharti AXA Life Insurance and Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance when he purchased the HDFC Life policy. According to the insurer, this amounted to suppression of material facts.

Also see: Health Insurance Reimbursement Delays: Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

Believing the claim had been unfairly rejected, Sindhuja approached the Kurnool District Consumer Commission.

She argued that the proposal form did not specifically ask applicants to disclose policies held with other insurance companies. Instead, the form referred only to existing insurance without making it clear that it included policies issued by other insurers.

Her counsel also pointed out that there is nothing illegal about holding multiple life insurance policies. Since HDFC Life had drafted the proposal form, any lack of clarity in its wording should be interpreted against the insurer rather than the policyholder.

After examining the proposal form, the Commission agreed with the complainant.

It observed that if HDFC Life wanted applicants to disclose insurance policies held with all insurers, it should have asked that question in clear and specific language. Since the proposal form failed to do so, the insurer could not later treat the omission as a material non-disclosure.

The Commission relied on the legal principle of contra proferentem, which means that if a contract contains ambiguous language, it should be interpreted against the party that drafted it. In this case, that party was HDFC Life.

The Commission found that HDFC Life failed to prove Dr. Kumar had intentionally concealed information or that the alleged non-disclosure affected its underwriting decision.

It also noted there was no link between the undisclosed policies and his death due to sudden cardiac arrest. Holding multiple life insurance policies, the Commission said, does not amount to fraud or misrepresentation.

It further observed that HDFC Life's Claims Review Committee upheld the claim rejection without adequately addressing the nominee's objections over the proposal form's wording.

Holding that HDFC Life was deficient in service, the Commission directed the insurer to:

• Pay the ₹50 lakh sum assured to the nominee.

• Pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony.

• Pay ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

• Complete the payment within 45 days, failing which the amount will carry 12% annual interest from January 24, 2025, until realization.

The ruling highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous communication in insurance contracts. It also reinforces that insurers cannot reject a life insurance claim based on information they never expressly asked policyholders to disclose.

Also see: She Struggled To Get a Lifesaving Drug Even After Insurers Vowed To Help

While deciding the case, the Consumer Commission relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mahaveer Sharma v. Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025).

In that case, the apex court held that when an insurance proposal form contains ambiguous wording, the benefit of doubt should go to the insured rather than the insurer that prepared the document.

Applying the same principle, the Commission concluded that HDFC Life could not deny the claim based on information it had never clearly sought from the policyholder.

(Rh/ARC/MSM)