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

Pravinchandra Shantilal Piyara – Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. – Respondent


ORDER(ORAL)

S.A. Shah, President. The complainant is the nominee of the deceased-insured Himatlal Shantilal Pujara who died on 17.8.1989 owing to cardiac trouble. There is no dispute that the deceased has filed a proposal to insure his life to get the life insurance policy for Rs. 50,000/- on 12.3.1989 and on the advice of the local agent of the Life Insurance Corporation(LIC) he paid a cheque dated 13.3.1989 for the premium. It is also not denied that the deceased disclosed that his one kidney was removed and, therefore, he was required to pay enhanced premium of Rs. 2,400/- instead of Rs. 1,600/- which is exactly 1.5 times more than the normal premium payable. The premium was alleged to have been accepted by the Insurance office at Dhrangadhra and it has been alleged that the policy was already prepared and issued but the same was not received by the complainant The fact regarding the issuance of the policy has been denied by the Insurance Company and there being no direct evidence, we will proceed on the basis that the deceased has made a proposal, has given a cheque for Rs. 2,400/ - as per the advice of the insurance agent of the LIC, has also disclosed that his one kidney was r








































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