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

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...