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

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...

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...