Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 07.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Sayan Kundu (petitioner) vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others (respondents).
  • The petitioner challenged an order dated 26‑12‑2025 where New India Assurance repudiated four Personal Accident Insurance (Individual) policies purchased by the deceased father, Ratan Kumar Kundu, each with a sum assured of Rs 25,00,000, totalising Rs 1,00,00,000. Policy numbers: 11300042230100000325, 11300042230100000326, 11300042230100000329, 11300042230100000330, effective 25‑09‑2023 to 24‑09‑2024.
  • The father died on 30‑04‑2024 after falling from a running train near Tolra railway station; the death was investigated by Daltonganj G.R.P. (U.D. Case No. 10 of 2024) and concluded as accidental on 16‑06‑2024.
  • Claim was lodged on 17‑05‑2024; petitioner submitted all required documents. Other insurers settled their policies, but New India Assurance refused settlement and issued a repudiation letter on 26‑12‑2025, alleging non‑disclosure of previously held insurance policies.
  • Respondent counsel argued that the proposal forms (digital/e‑proposal) required disclosure of previous policy numbers; the petitioner had entered “0” in the column, thereby suppressing material facts. The insurer conducted an independent investigation and discovered the insured had multiple other personal accident and life policies aggregating to approximately Rs 25 crore, which were not disclosed.
  • Petitioner's counsel relied on IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders' Interests, Operations and Allied Matters of Insurers) Regulations 2024, specifically Regulation 56(1), 56(2) (claim settlement within 15 or 45 days), Regulation 56(7) (interest entitlement if delayed), and Regulation 56(10) (no repudiation without legally tenable evidence). He highlighted that the insurer repudiated the claim after 585 days, far beyond the statutory timeline.
  • The insurer cited Supreme Court judgments: Manmohan Nanda v. United India Assurance (2022) 4 SCC 582, emphasizing that once a policy is issued, the insurer cannot later claim nondisclosure for a blank column; Santosh Kumar v. Insurance Ombudsman (2025) SCC OnLine All 2647, stating mere non‑disclosure of prior policies is not a ground for suppression; and Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhaben Rathod (2019) 6 SCC 175, holding that material nondisclosure can justify avoidance if it induced the contract.
  • The court examined the e‑proposal form definition under Regulation 2(d) and Regulation 4 of the 2024 Regulations, noting that the column “Previous Policy Number” was filled with “0”, not left blank, and that the insurer had the right to consider this material information.
  • The court also referenced the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002, and the Issuance of E‑Insurance Policies Regulations, 2016, confirming that electronic proposals are equivalent to physical ones and must capture material facts.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court found no illegality in the insurer’s order dated 26‑12‑2025 and upheld the repudiation of the four policies on the ground of nondisclosure of material facts.
  • WPA No. 1304 of 2026 was dismissed.
  • Parties may rely on the server copy of the judgment posted on the Court’s official website.

Topics: Insurance Claim Repudiation, Regulatory Compliance