Back
M. R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI
Sulakshna – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission) in Revision Petition No. 2675 of 2015, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. There was an agreement between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein regarding issuance of insurance cover. It was a group insurance. That a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited with respondent No. 2 towards premium on 31.12.2006. Respondent No. 2 issued a cover note on the very day i.e., 31.12.2006. The husband of original complainant died on 17.02.2007 in a road accident. However, it appears that respondent No. 1 – insurance company issued policies for the period from 09.03.2007 to 08.02.2008 on the ground that respondent No. 2 credited the amount of premium on 09.03.2007. Therefore, respondent No. 1 – insurance company refused to pay the amount and refused to settle the claim. Therefore, the complainant filed Complaint Case No. 132/10 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum
Group Insurance Policy – Insured shall be entitled to amount insured under policies for which amount of premium was already paid prior to death of insured.
The key legal principle established was that the insurance cover could not commence without the acceptance of the application form by the insurance company, and the insurance company was liable to re....
Revisional jurisdiction - where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdict....
(1) Concurrent findings – In the present case there are concurrent findings of facts and thus revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited.(2) Revisional jurisdiction – In exercising of revi....
Repudiation of life insurance claim or ground of address and identity of insured and nominee, held not justified.
The court upheld that sufficient evidence established the identities necessary for the insurance claim, rendering the insurer's repudiation unjustified.
Petitioners failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
