About Us Contact us Kannada

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had held that insurance claim cannot be denied on the ground of common lifestyle diseases such as diabetes or hypertension but that does not give right to the insured to suppress information in respect of such diseases.

The commission also reiterated that suppression of any information relating to pre-existing disease if it has not resulted in death or has no direct relationship to cause of death, would not completely disentitle the claimant from claiming the insured amount.

NCDRC member Prem Narain said so while deciding the appeal of one Neelam Chopra, a resident of Mohali in Punjab.

Her husband had taken an LIC policy in the year 2003 and after being medically examined by a panel of doctors, he was issued the policy w.e.f. 25.12.2002 to 25.6.2026.

The husband of the complainant died on January 7, 2004 due to cardio-respiratory arrest. Her claim was rejected by LIC on the ground that the insured had suppressed material information regarding his health at the time of effecting the policy as he suffered from diabetes and LL Hansen’s disease.

When Neelam moved the District Forum, LIC was told to pay her the insurance claim amount of Rs 5 lakh along with 12 per cent interest besides Rs 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation. The State Commission of Haryana allowed the appeal moved by LIC. This is when Neelam moved NCDRC. The NCDRC noted, “…the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) died on 07.01.2004 and therefore, the disease on account of which the death occurred was not prevailing on the date of filing of the proposal form as the proposal form was filled on 24.01.2003. It has also been alleged that the DLA was suffering from diabetes as mentioned in the treatment record of PGI Chandigarh. He was suffering for 3-4 years from diabetes. In the certificate of Medical Attendance, it is also mentioned that the DLA was suffering from diabetes, however, diabetes was under control. “So far as the life style diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure are concerned”, the Commission quoted from the Delhi High Court judgment in case titled Hari Om Agarwal Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it was held that, “Insurance- Mediclaim-ReimbursementPresent Petition filed for appropriate directions to respondent to reimburse expenses incurred by him for his medical treatment, in accordance with policy of insurance- Held, there is no dispute that diabetes was a condition at time of submission of proposal, so was hypertension-Petitioner was advised to undergo ECG, which he did- Insurer accepted proposal and issued cover note- It is universally known that hypertension and diabetes can lead to a host of ailments, such as stroke, cardiac disease, renal failure, liver complications depending upon varied factors- That implies that there is probability of such ailments, equally they can arise in non-diabetics or those without hypertension. It would be apparent that giving a textual effect to Clause 4.1 of policy would in most such cases render mediclaim cover meaningless- Policy would be reduced to a contract with no content, in event of happening of contingency”.

The commission, therefore, held that it was clear that “the insurance claim cannot be denied on the ground of these lifestyle diseases that are so common. However, it does not give any right to the person insured to suppress information in respect of such diseases. The person insured may suffer consequences in terms of the reduced claims.” It also relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar and Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India to say that, “… suppression of any information relating to pre-existing disease if it has not resulted in death or has no direct relationship to cause of death, would not completely disentitle the claimant for the claim”. The commission, therefore, set aside the order of the state commission and modified the order of the district forum to the extent that LIC was told to pay only the insurance amount of Rs 5 lakh and compensation of Rs 25,000 along with litigation cost of Rs 5,000. Interest at the rate of 8 per cent would be attracted only if the LIC fails to comply with the order within 45 days.

Courtesy: www.livelaw.in

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.

Comments

New Delhi: A Noida-based private University, Galgotias has come under severe criticism after allegedly showcasing a china-made robotic dog at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 in New Delhi.

Social media users accused the university of purchasing a commercial robot from China and presenting it as its own creation at the summit.

Reports claimed that the university showcased the Unitree Go2 robotic dog, an AI-powered device available on Chinese platforms for Rs 2–3 lakh, under the name “Orion” during the event in New Delhi.

“So Galgotia university purchased a commercially available robot worth Rs 2.5 lakhs, called it their own and passed it off in the Delhi AI Summit as a part of their 350 crore AI ecosystem..I literally have no words left,” wrote ‘X’ user Roshan Rai, sharing a video in which a DD News reporter interviewed a university official about the robotic dog.

The viral post claimed that the robot closely resembles Unitree Go2, a quadruped robotic dog developed by Chinese company Unitree Robotics.

Screenshots attached to the post compared the robot displayed at the summit with the Unitree Go2 listing, priced at roughly 2,800 dollars (around Rs 2.3–2.5 lakhs).

According Unitree Robotics, The Unitree Go2 is widely used as a programmable quadruped robot for research, education, inspection, and development purposes, and is a common learning platform in universities and robotics labs worldwide.

Several users reiterated the claim.

Government of India funds for filing patents

Meanwhile, concerns were raised about alleged misuse of government funds.

User @sky_phd highlighted, “Galgotias University is once again in the spotlight. Under the guise of research and innovation, they are raking in plenty of money.”

The user claimed that the university took money under government funds, and wrote, “The Government of India provides incentive funding of up to five lakh rupees for filing patents.”

“To understand the patent filing process and the games being played with it, take a look at the list of top Indian institutions filing patents. All the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) together file only 803 patents, while institutions like Lovely Professional University, Jain Deemed-to-be University, Galgotias University, and Teerthanker Mahaveer University have filed more than a thousand patents each,” the user wrote, sharing a chart of patent filings by these universities.

“The basic international patent filing fee is $285–400. Through patent filings alone, these institutions are reportedly earning more than fifty crore rupees annually. However, while these universities file patents, they often do not pursue them further, and most patents ultimately do not get granted. This inflates filing numbers but does not reflect real innovation or recognized intellectual property,” the user added.

Another user pointed out about the selection criteria of the summit. The user questioned, “What exactly was the selection criteria for participation in this AI summit? .”

“Platforms meant to showcase India’s innovation should represent genuine research, original ideas, and credible institutions. So how did Galgotias University qualify to display a Chinese-made robot and present it as its own “innovation”? If true, this isn’t just embarrassing, it undermines the credibility of the entire summit and of India’s growing tech ecosystem. At a time when India is trying to position itself as a global AI and deep-tech leader, showcasing repackaged imports as indigenous innovation only damages trust. If we want the world to take India’s AI ambitions seriously, transparency and authenticity must come first,” the user added.

 

University clarifies after backlash

In response to the criticism, Galgotias University issued a clarification, stating that it “never claimed to have built the device” and that the robot was procured from a Chinese manufacturer for academic purposes.

“Let us be clear, Galgotias has not built this robodog, nor have we claimed to do so. What we are building are minds that will soon design, engineer, and manufacture such technologies in Bharat," the university said.

The university in its statement also pointed out that the Unitree Go2 is being used as a learning tool for students.

“From the US to China and Singapore, we bring advanced technologies to campus because exposure creates vision, and vision creates creators. The robodog is actively being used by students to test capabilities and explore real-world applications,” the university added.

University professor claims “it's developed by the Center of Excellence at the Galgotias University.”

In another video captured by DD News, a reporter showcased the Galgotias University pavilion at the India AI Impact Summit 2026.

At the pavilion, the reporter spoke with the university professor about the technology on display.

The professor introduced the robot, saying, “This is Orion. You need to meet Orion. It has been developed by the Center of Excellence at Galgotias University.”

She added, “I would also like to brief you about Galgotias University. We are the first private university investing more than Rs 350 crore in artificial intelligence and have a dedicated data science and AI lab on campus.”

“Orion has been developed by our Center of Excellence. It can take all shapes and sizes and is quite playful. It can perform small tasks such as surveillance and monitoring. It can even execute movements like moonwalks and somersaults,” she explained.

She also claimed that, “This is India’s first iOS lab in North India at a university, giving our students hands-on experience with cutting-edge technology.”

Reacting to the video social media users ridiculed the 350 cr rupees investment compared to the china made robo dog.

Past Controversies of the University

This is not the first time the university is in controversy. In May 2024, during the Lok Sabha elections, a video went viral showing students protesting outside the Congress headquarters in New Delhi against the party’s manifesto. The footage, captured by Aaj Tak, showed students struggling to articulate the purpose of their protest, raising questions about the demonstration’s intent.

Earlier, in 2017, students protested against the university management after being barred from appearing in exams due to low attendance, with allegations that fines were requested to allow attendance, a claim denied by the administration.

All Stories

Motorist dies after falling into roadside pit in Kerala's Thodupuzha; Minister orders probe
Motorist dies after falling into roadside pit in Kerala's Thodupuzha; Minister orders probe

A 27-year-old man died after allegedly falling into an open roadside pit near Thodupuzha in Idukki district, police said on Tuesday. 
Telangana: Man sets woman on fire for 'rejecting' marriage proposal
Telangana: Man sets woman on fire for 'rejecting' marriage proposal

A 28-year-old married woman was set on fire allegedly by a man after she "rejected" his marriage proposal in Mahabubabad town on Tuesday, police said.
Hassan: Two young men die in two-wheeler head-on collision in Channarayapatna
Hassan: Two young men die in two-wheeler head-on collision in Channarayapatna

Two young men reportedly died in a head-on collision between a scooter and a bike near the Doderi guard gate in Channarayapatna taluk of the district on Tuesday.

Copyright © 2026. Vartha Bharati. All rights reserved