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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more