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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more