In Brief
The appellant purchased a chemical manufacturing factory and obtained fire insurance from the respondent insurer. When the factory caught fire, the insurer repudiated the claim on two grounds: the appellant allegedly stored Hexane without obtaining the required licence under the Petroleum Act and Rules, and had overvalued the factory to obtain excessive insurance coverage. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the repudiation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Hexane qualifies as petroleum Class A (flash point below 23°C), and the large quantity stored required a licence under the Petroleum Rules. The non-disclosure of lack of this licence constituted material non-disclosure breaching the policy terms. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.