SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 398

B. V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mahaveer Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Exide Life Insurance Company Limited – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Mr. Dhananjai Shekhwat, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv. Ms. Anjali Saxena, Adv. Mr. Dashrath Singh, Adv. Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR

JUDGMENT :

(Satish Chandra Sharma, J.)

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal is arising out of order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (for short, “the National Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1963 of 2018 dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant against the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, the “State Commission”) by which the claim of the present appellant was rejected on account of suppression of material facts.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the father of the appellant – Ramkaran Sharma had obtained an insurance policy from the respondent – Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 09.06.2014 and unfortunately, died in an accident on 19.08.2015. The present appellant being the son of late Ramkaran Sharma submitted a claim for payment of benefits under the policy; however, the said claim was repudiated vide letter dated 03.03.2016. The claim was repudiated on the ground that there was material suppression by the father of the appellant while applying for insurance policy and respondents have relied upon the terms and conditions of Exide Li

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

[No cases identified as bad law. None of the case laws contain keywords or phrases indicating they have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law.]

Mahakali Sujatha VS Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited - 2024 3 Supreme 657: No keywords or phrases (e.g., "followed," "distinguished," "overruled") indicate any judicial treatment by subsequent decisions. The text describes legal principles on burden of proof in insurance claims but provides no treatment information.

Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd. VS Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod - 2020 5 Supreme 517: No keywords or phrases indicate judicial treatment. The text outlines principles on utmost good faith and material facts in insurance contracts but provides no treatment information.

Satwant Kaur Sandhu VS New India Assurance Company Ltd. - 2009 5 Supreme 523: No keywords or phrases indicate judicial treatment. The text states a principle on non-disclosure justifying repudiation but provides no treatment information.

[No cases. All cases have clearly no indicated treatment based on the absence of any relevant keywords or phrases in the provided list.]

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top