Skip to main content

Both insurer and insured to disclose material facts

The apex consumer commission has directed an insurance firm to pay Rs 50 lakh to a pilot of a private airline for wrongly denying a policy claim, saying he was made to "take a dollop of injustice" from the company.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice J M Malik, asked New India Assurance Company Ltd to pay the money to east Delhi resident Capt Anant Kumar Singh who worked as a pilot with JetLite.

"The purpose of law is to prevent the strong always having their way. An insured, like a pilot, should be dealt with kid gloves, but in this case, he was made to take a dollop of injustice from the insurance company, who was in a position to call the shots," the commission said.

The bench, also comprising its member S M Kantikar, said "the whole gamut of the facts and circumstances leans in favour of the complainant (Singh). We, therefore, allow the complaint and direct the insurance company, to pay a sum of Rs 50 lakh in favour of the complainant (Singh)."

It added that "the insurer has a duty to disclose and similarly, it is the duty of the insurance company and its agents to disclose material facts in their knowledge since obligation of 'good faith' applies to both, equally."

According to complaint filed by Singh, he had applied for an insurance policy from the firm in the sum of Rs one crore and paid Rs 56,200 as premium in favour of the firm which was encashed by it on April 30, 2009.

Meanwhile, on December 22, 2009, Singh was declared permanently unfit for flying and he apprised the firm of this fact.

Several telephonic reminders and meetings of Singh with the firm did not yield any result after which he sent a legal notice on January 18, 2011 to it.

The firm, however, repudiated Singh's claim alleging that he did not disclose the fact that he was suffering from hypertension and chronic kidney disease.

 Article referred: http://www.ptinews.com/news/6021451_NCDRC-asks-insurance-firm-to-pay-Rs-50-lakh-to-pilot-.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more