Skip to main content

Doctor's prescriptions have to be substantiated by an Affidavit of the said doctor

In  PNB METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs VINITA DEVI, the claim of the respondent on death of her husband-the insured was repudiated by the insurer on th ground of suppression of material facts.

The respondent claimed heart failure as cause of death while the insurer claimed that the insured had suppressed the fact that he suffered from severe kidney problems. However, the records provided by the insurer were found not be dependable.

The District as well as the State Forum has found the insurer to have been deficient in their service. The NCDRC referring to the judgment of the Commission titled Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I which has attained finality, held that it has been observed in the said judgment  that the doctor’s prescriptions have to be substantiated by an Affidavit of the said doctor,  specially in the light of the fact that it is being disputed by the Complainant. In the instant case the Insurance Company has not produced the affidavit of the concerned doctor nor did the said doctor answer any interrogatory by way of evidence before the Fora below.  At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the burden to prove that the life assured was suffering from any pre-existing disease lies with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company had not filed any documentary evidence or Affidavit of the treating doctor in support of their contention.  Hence we find force in the contention of the Counsel of the Complainant that the insured was never treated by the said doctor Y.K. Thakur of Hazipur as the reports are not substantiated by any affidavit of evidence.  In the light of this observation, we are of the considered view that the aspect of nexus between  the kidney disease and heart attack is of no relevance in the instant case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more