What HDFC Life asked the doctor to disclose
Dr G. Sravan Kumar, an ICU duty doctor in Kurnool, held an HDFC Life Click 2 Protect Super policy with ₹50 lakh cover from 15 October 2022. He died while on hospital duty in February 2024. His wife and nominee, Bonthala Sindhuja, submitted a death claim. HDFC Life rejected it on 22 May 2024, saying he had failed to mention two earlier life policies, with Kotak Life and Bharti AXA, worth about ₹2 crore together. Its claims review committee upheld the decision the following month.
The existence of those other policies was documented. The dispute was whether the answers on HDFC Life’s proposal form justified repudiation. The insurer said disclosure would have affected underwriting; Sindhuja challenged both that conclusion and the wording used to obtain the information.
The proposal form decided this complaint
The Kurnool District Consumer Commission examined the actual questions. One asked whether the proposer had an existing HDFC Life policy; he answered no. A separate 'Previous Policy Details' section used compound questions about simultaneous applications and existing premium-paying or paid-up cover. The commission found that the form did not plainly ask whether he held policies with other insurers. It construed that ambiguity against the company that wrote the questions.
The commission also found the review committee’s answer mechanical and the insurer’s evidence insufficient to establish the alleged material, deliberate suppression on this record. It noted the doctor’s natural death while on duty, but this should not be recast as a general rule that non-disclosure matters only when it caused the death.
The order and its limits
On 1 June 2026, the commission ordered HDFC Life to pay ₹50 lakh under the policy, ₹50,000 for mental agony and ₹10,000 in costs. The order allows 45 days after receipt for payment; if that deadline is missed, the awarded amount carries 12% annual interest from the complaint date stated in the order, 24 January 2025, until realisation. Interest is conditional and is not part of the fixed ₹50.6 lakh award.
Section 45 of the Insurance Act has separate routes for fraud and material misstatement within the initial three years, with distinct requirements. The commission’s finding rested on this proposal form and the evidence produced. A clearly worded question about other policies, supported underwriting evidence, or a different statutory ground could present a different case.
Our Section 45 guide explains how to read the repudiation ground and time period.
What Tatkal Claims would check
The first comparison is the exact electronic proposal shown to the doctor against his answer, the prior-policy schedules and the insurer’s stated underwriting reason. Then we would read the repudiation and internal review letters for a specific Section 45 ground and evidence that the omitted cover changed the risk decision. The Kurnool result turns on that chain of documents, not a blanket exemption from disclosing other insurance.
