Yes, you can fight it. If a life insurer rejected your claim only because the policyholder did not list every other policy they held, that rejection is on weak ground. The Supreme Court ruled in February 2025 that failing to mention other smaller policies is not a material fact when the person had already disclosed a substantial existing policy, so the claim cannot be repudiated for that reason alone.
Short on time? Jump to the step-by-step section and start with a written grievance to the insurer.
Ramesh's father took a life cover of about ₹25 lakh. After an accidental death, Ramesh filed the claim as nominee. The insurer rejected it, saying his father had not disclosed two other small policies he held. But the proposal form had clearly disclosed a much larger policy of about ₹40 lakh from another insurer. The undisclosed policies together were worth only a fraction of that. Ramesh sent a written representation citing the Supreme Court ruling below, and pursued the Insurance Ombudsman route. The omission of minor policies did not change the insurer's risk, so the rejection did not hold.
This is a common trap. Insurers cite “non-disclosure of material facts” to repudiate claims. But not every omission is material. The law looks at whether the missing fact would have changed a prudent insurer's decision to issue the policy.
In Mahaveer Sharma v Exide Life Insurance Company Limited (2025 INSC 268), decided on 25 February 2025, the Supreme Court held that failure to mention other policies does not amount to a material fact in relation to the policy availed, when the person has made substantial disclosure of at least one existing policy.
The Court drew a clear line between two situations:
The takeaway: an honest, substantial disclosure is not destroyed by the omission of a few minor policies. The Court directed the insurer to release all policy benefits with interest at 9% per annum from the date the amount became due until it is paid (para 20).
| Ground cited by insurer | Usually valid? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Omitting small other policies after disclosing a major one | No | Not a material fact per Mahaveer Sharma (2025 INSC 268) |
| Complete concealment of all other policies | Often yes | Material non-disclosure, like Rekhaben Rathod |
| Hiding a serious pre-existing illness relevant to the cover | Often yes | Directly affects the insurer's risk |
| Repudiation after 3 years from the policy start, without proving fraud | No | Barred by Section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938 |
| Genuine fraud or fabricated documents | Yes | Fraud voids the contract |
| Minor clerical or immaterial errors | No | Does not influence a prudent insurer's decision |
Insurers often invoke “utmost good faith,” the duty of both sides to deal honestly. That duty is real. But it does not let an insurer reject an honest claim over an immaterial omission.
You do not have to choose the Ombudsman and the Consumer Commission together. Pick the one that suits your case.
To: The Grievance Redressal Officer, [Insurer name] Subject: Repudiation of claim under policy no. [XXXX] is not sustainable I am the nominee under the above policy. You have rejected my claim on the ground that the life assured did not disclose certain other insurance policies. The proposal form clearly disclosed an existing policy of about ₹[amount]. The policies you say were omitted are of much smaller value and would not have changed a prudent insurer's decision to issue this cover. The Supreme Court in Mahaveer Sharma v Exide Life Insurance Company Limited (2025 INSC 268, dated 25 February 2025) held that omitting other policies is not a material fact where substantial disclosure of one policy was made, and the claim cannot be repudiated on that ground. I request you to release the full benefits with interest within 15 days, failing which I will approach the Insurance Ombudsman and the Consumer Commission. Name, signature, date, contact details.
For a broader toolkit on framing complaints and using your information rights, see The RTI Playbook.
Not on that ground alone, if a substantial policy was already disclosed. The Supreme Court in Mahaveer Sharma v Exide Life (2025 INSC 268) held that omitting minor policies is not a material fact when one major policy was disclosed. Complete concealment of all policies is treated differently and can be material.
A material fact is information that would influence a prudent insurer's decision to issue the policy or set its terms. A serious illness is material. The omission of a few small policies, after disclosing a large one, generally is not, because it does not change the insurer's risk.
Often, yes. Section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938 bars an insurer from questioning a life policy after 3 years from its commencement, except by proving fraud. If your policy has run past 3 years, the insurer carries a heavy burden to justify repudiation.
Either works. The Insurance Ombudsman is free, faster, and needs no lawyer, under the Insurance Ombudsman Rules 2017. A Consumer Commission can award compensation, interest, and costs for deficiency in service. Start with the insurer's grievance cell and Bima Bharosa first.
Courts and the Ombudsman can award interest for wrongful delay. In Mahaveer Sharma, the Supreme Court ordered 9% per annum from the date the amount became due until it was paid. Your exact rate depends on the facts and the forum.
The principle of materiality is similar, but health claims often turn on pre-existing disease and treatment disclosure. See the related guides below for health-specific rejections and the IRDAI complaint route.
No, not to start. You can write to the grievance cell, file on Bima Bharosa, and approach the Insurance Ombudsman yourself. A lawyer helps only if the matter goes to the Consumer Commission or court and you want representation.