The Revival Trap: Section 45 After a Lapse
ABC Life received a death claim on 18 November 2024 under a 30-year term plan with a sum assured of ₹1.2 crore, issued on 12 March 2020 to a 34-year-old software engineer who died in a road accident on 2 September 2024. The 2020 proposal form recorded "No" against the questions on diabetes and hypertension. Hospital records obtained with the claim show a 2018 diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes and a 2019 admission for uncontrolled hypertension. The policy lapsed in May 2022 for non-payment of premium and was revived on 9 February 2023 after the insured signed a "Declaration of Good Health" stating that he had not been hospitalised in the preceding five years. The claims committee is split: legal says revival restarts the three-year clock under Section 45, so repudiation remains open until 9 February 2026; the underwriting head says the 2020 suppression is the real issue; the distribution head warns of Ombudsman and social-media backlash. The nominee has already filed an IGMS complaint and has threatened to move the consumer commission.
1. Does Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 permit the insurer to repudiate this claim in November 2024? Identify precisely which statement can and cannot be called in question, and explain how the February 2023 revival changes the analysis.
Read the worked answer
The answer turns on identifying the statement being called in question, not on the insurer's view of the insured's honesty.
The 2020 answers are untouchable. Section 45(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938 (as substituted by the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015) bars an insurer from calling a life policy in question on the ground of a material fact misstated or suppressed after three years from the later of issue, commencement of risk, revival, or rider date. The 2015 amendment deleted the earlier fraud exception, so once the window closes there is no residual fraud route. Twelve March 2020 plus three years is twelve March 2023; the 2020 proposal answers are therefore time-barred and can never ground a repudiation in November 2024.
The revival declaration is a separate statement. "Whichever is later" makes 9 February 2026 the operative deadline for anything said at revival, so repudiation is legally possible - but only if the revival declaration is itself false and material. Two conditions must be met: the revival form must actually have asked about hospitalisation in the preceding five years (attach the form), and the 2019 admission must have been material to the decision to revive. The insurer must not dress up the 2020 suppression as the ground; if the revival form was silent on the point, the claim is payable in full.
2. If the insurer decides to repudiate, what procedural steps and documentation must precede the repudiation letter, and what would make the decision vulnerable before the Ombudsman or a consumer commission?
Read the worked answer
Four steps before any repudiation letter issues.
- Ground it on the revival declaration only. Attach the revival form, the specific questions asked, and the declaration signed on 9 February 2023. If the form did not ask about the 2019 hospitalisation, stop - there is no case.
- Give notice. The proviso to Section 45(1) requires 15 days' notice to the policyholder or nominee stating the grounds and the material relied on, so that a representation can be made. Send copies of the hospital records and the investigator's report with the notice.
- Decide by a speaking order. An officer with delegated authority must record what was asked, what was answered, what the truth was, why it was material to revival, and why the claim is not time-barred. A bare label of "moral hazard" or "fraudulent intent" will not survive scrutiny.
- Observe the timelines. The claim must be settled within 30 days of the last necessary document under the protection-of-policyholders framework; a repudiation is a settlement and the clock runs.
Vulnerabilities the Ombudsman or a consumer commission will exploit: relying on the 2020 proposal (time-barred); non-supply of documents; a decision with no reasons; delay beyond 30 days; and any suggestion that the accidental death made the health suppression immaterial - materiality is judged at underwriting, not by cause of death, but the insurer must say so expressly.
3. The distribution head proposes offering 60% of the sum assured as an ex gratia settlement "without prejudice" to close the file. Evaluate that proposal.
Read the worked answer
Ex gratia is not a lawful substitute for deciding the claim, and 60% is a bad number here.
If the Section 45 analysis holds - the revival declaration was false and material - the insurer can repudiate in full. Offering 60% concedes a doubt it does not have and invites the nominee to litigate for the balance while banking the 60%. If the analysis does not hold - the 2020 suppression is time-barred and the revival form did not ask the right question - the claim is payable in full, and a 60% offer is an underpayment of a clear claim that a consumer commission will readily top up with interest and compensation.
A without-prejudice settlement is defensible only where liability is genuinely disputed on facts, the amount is negotiated with an informed nominee (ideally through mediation under the Ombudsman or the insurer's conciliation process), the approval is documented, and the release is drafted as full and final. It should never be used to make a Section 45 problem disappear, because an IRDAI inspection can ask why a legally payable claim was compromised at 60%. Recommendation: complete the Section 45 analysis within the 30-day timeline, then either pay in full or repudiate with reasons; if there is real doubt, negotiate close to the sum assured, not at 60%.