Skip to main content

Repudiation of policy claim on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts, declared improper

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While declaring the repudiation of claim of a policyholder by the insurance company on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts as improper, NCDRC directed the insurance company to pay the insurance cover amount to the policyholder. A pilot of a private airline had approached NCDRC alleging that he was denied insurance claim on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was a known case of Hypertension and chronic kidney disease. Earlier, the complainant who was working for Jet Lite (India) Ltd. as pilot from 01.12.2007 had obtained a policy Ltd. of Rs.1.00 crore in April, 2009 from New India Assurance Co. and paid a sum of Rs.56, 200/- as premium. Later, in December, 2009, when the complainant was declared ‘permanently unfit’  for flying, he approached the insurance company for his policy claim but his claim was repudiated on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was a known case of Hypertension and chronic kidney disease. The complainant had alleged that as the last two medical tests conducted by the Air Force, reveal that the complainant had met the prescribed medical standards and the insurance policy was issued after going through the said medical reports, insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount. After perusing the documents, Commission observed that, “At the time of renewal of the licence, the complainant had undergone assessment through Medical Board constituted by Air Force Central Medical Establishment and it was certified that the complainant met the specified medical standards.  The said disease was detected only in June, 2009.  There is not even an iota of evidence which may go to show that the complainant suffered from this ailment, prior to April, 2009.” Accordingly, the Commission directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.50, 00,000/- in favour of the complainant, with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of complaint till its realisation.” The sum of Rs.27, 575/-, which was not earlier refunded by the company to the complainant was also directed to be refunded with interest @ 18% p.a., till its realization. (Capt. A.K.Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 12, decided on 11.05.2015)

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/06/04/repudiation-of-policy-claim-on-the-ground-of-non-disclosure-of-material-facts-declared-improper.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more