This tag is associated with 2 posts

When policy is only for Graduates – an 8th standard person can not apply for it – misstatement as B.Com., comes to material suppression- No claim =“Whether the insured is bound to explain the correct educational qualifications before the Insurance Company, when that insurance is meant only for Graduates?”. – yes = It is thus clear that there are two categories, one for Graduates and the other for Non-Graduates. The mis-statement made by the deceased go to the root of the case and violate the basic principle of ‘utmost faith’, which obviously forms the corner stone of any insurance contract. Due to this mis-statement, the complainant is not entitled to any claim. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in IV (2009) CPJ 8 (SC), was pleased to hold that : “The term “material fact” is not defined in the Act and, in therefore, it has been understood and explained by the Courts in general terms to mean as any fact which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or determining whether he would like to accept the risk. Any fact which goes to the root of the Contract of Insurance and has a bearing on the risk involved would be “material”. Nonetheless, it is a contract of insurance falling in the category of contract ‘uberrimae fidei’, meaning, ‘a contract of utmost good faith, on the part of the assured’. Thus, it needs little emphasis that when an information on a specific aspect is asked for in the proposal form, an assured is under a solemn obligation to make a true and full disclosure of the information on the subject which is within his knowledge. It is not for the proposer to determine whether the information sought for is material for the purpose of the policy or not. Of course, obligation to disclose extends only to facts which are known to the applicant and not to what he ought to have known. The obligation to disclose necessarily depends upon the knowledge one possesses. – As stated in Pollock and Mulla’s Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, any fact, the knowledge or ignorance of which would materially influence an insurer in making the contract or in estimating the degree and character of risks in fixing the rate of premium, is a material fact”. – In view of this discussion, we allow the revision petition, set aside the orders rendered by both the fora below and dismiss the complaint. No costs.

published in NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     REVISION PETITION NO. 3442 OF 2012 (From the order dated 13.07.2012 in Appeal No. 911/2011  of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, GUJARAT ) MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Chief Manager – Legal Brigade Seshamahal, 5-Vani Vilas Road Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004                        …Petitioner Versus … Continue reading

Hawa Singh Meel, the complainant in this case desired to purchase the seeds of Ashwagandha (Winder Chery) from M/s Adinath Trading Company, Mandi Prangan, Neemuch (M.P.). Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 was to supply the seed of Ashwagandha on 24.06.2003 through Transport Corporation of India,the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to deliver the goods to the complainant after obtaining the demand draft and thus the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 clearly stands established is without any flaw. The opposite Party No.1 could not explain why it had not given the consignee copy to the complainant. This was not denied that the opposite party No.1 had received the demand draft. The complainant had also placed the bilty which showed that M/s Addinath Trading Company, Mandi Prangan, Neemuch (M.P.) sent the bag containing seed to the Opposite Party No.1 for the complainant. The complainant rightly refused to take the seed in the month of November as the sowing season was already over. 5. The revision petition is without merit and therefore the same is dismissed.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI    REVISION PETITION NO. 1826 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 12-01-2012 in Appeal No. 1890/2005 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) WITH I.A./1/2012 (For stay) Transport Corporation of India                                         …….. Petitioner (s) Mohana Mandi, Hisar, Haryana Through its Zonal Manager, Shri Rohit Pant Versus 1.   Hawa Singh … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,647 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com