Skip to main content

Doctor's prescriptions have to be substantiated by an Affidavit of the said doctor

In  PNB METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs VINITA DEVI, the claim of the respondent on death of her husband-the insured was repudiated by the insurer on th ground of suppression of material facts.

The respondent claimed heart failure as cause of death while the insurer claimed that the insured had suppressed the fact that he suffered from severe kidney problems. However, the records provided by the insurer were found not be dependable.

The District as well as the State Forum has found the insurer to have been deficient in their service. The NCDRC referring to the judgment of the Commission titled Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I which has attained finality, held that it has been observed in the said judgment  that the doctor’s prescriptions have to be substantiated by an Affidavit of the said doctor,  specially in the light of the fact that it is being disputed by the Complainant. In the instant case the Insurance Company has not produced the affidavit of the concerned doctor nor did the said doctor answer any interrogatory by way of evidence before the Fora below.  At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the burden to prove that the life assured was suffering from any pre-existing disease lies with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company had not filed any documentary evidence or Affidavit of the treating doctor in support of their contention.  Hence we find force in the contention of the Counsel of the Complainant that the insured was never treated by the said doctor Y.K. Thakur of Hazipur as the reports are not substantiated by any affidavit of evidence.  In the light of this observation, we are of the considered view that the aspect of nexus between  the kidney disease and heart attack is of no relevance in the instant case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
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