INDER JIT SINGH
Pravar Adhikshak (Senior Superintendent of Post Offices) – Appellant
Versus
Pinky Wadhwa – Respondent
ORDER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 21.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 21/2017 in which order dated 26.10.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 128/2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the State Commission in FA/21/2017 and the judgment dated 26.10.2016 passed by the District Forum in CC 128/2015.
2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants before the State Commission and Opposite Parties before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA/21/2017 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No. 128/2015.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent/Caveator on 26.04.2019. Parties filed Written Arguments on 24.01.
Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269
Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31, Para 12, 13
Manmohan Nanda Vs. United India Assurance Company Limited and Anr. (2022) 4 SCC 582.(Para 13)
Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 8 SCC 316.(Para 13)
LIC of India Vs. Smt. G.M. Channabasamma (1991) 1 SCC 357.(Para 13)
T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors.
Revisional Jurisdiction – Revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision....
(1) Burden of proof – Insurance is a contract of utmost good faith, but the burden of proving that the insured suppressed material facts lies strictly on the Insurer. Exclusionary clauses and allegat....
The burden to prove misrepresentation or suppression of material facts in insurance contracts lies with the insurer, and claims cannot be repudiated without credible evidence.
(1) Proposal form – In filling up the proposal form, the agent normally, ceases to act as agent of the insurer but becomes the agent of the insured and no agent can be assumed to have authority from ....
Contract of Insurance – A contract of insurance is one of utmost good faith. A proposer who seeks to obtain a policy of life insurance is duty bound to disclose all material facts bearing upon the is....
Suppression of material facts by an insured can render an insurance claim voidable, impacting the insurer's liability.
(1) National Commission - National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Commission is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record.(2) National Commission - Nat....
(1) Full Knowledge – DLA had the full knowledge of pre-existing ailments at the time of filling the proposal form and there was a nexus with preexisting disease and the cause(s) of death.(2) Proposal....
There should be nexus with pre-existing disease & disease for which claim has been made.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.