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

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

NCLT - Board meetings by video-conferencing

In Achintya Kumar Barua vs. Ranjit Barthkur, the NCLAT has held recently that if any director desires to attend board meetings by video conferencing, the company is bound to allow attendance in this manner. In other words, it is not up to the company or at the discretion of the Chairman/Company Secretary whether or not to allow attendance by video conferencing. The right and option is with any director who so desires. NCLAT has held that the words of Section 173(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 are clear on this. There are, of course, some specified resolutions which cannot be considered in a meeting held by video-conference. However, a proviso inserted to Section 173(2) by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, though not yet brought into effect, says that even in respect of these matters, if the required quorum is physically present, other directors can attend and participate by video-conferencing.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more