Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, SUSHIL KUKREJA
Life Insurance Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Thakur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. connected matters disposed together on common questions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. himuda adopted lic da-linked pension scheme via trust. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. single judge upheld scheme over lic objections. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. lic contends no locus, un-concluded contract, estoppel. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. utmost good faith mandates insurer disclosure in contracts. (Para 22) |
| 6. employees and employer have locus against lic. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 7. scheme terms binding; conflicting master policy unenforceable. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. uphold judgment; direct pension per agreed scheme. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
These matters, for involvement of common question of law and facts, to be decided on the basis of common documents, are being decided together.
2. LPA Nos. 45 to 48 of 2019 have been preferred by Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short the ‘LIC’) against the common judgment dated 25.04.2019, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1147 of 2016, titled as Raj Kumar Thakur & Ors. vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.; CWP No. 1439 of 2016, titled as Devender Kumar Tandon & Ors. vs. Himach
Agreed pension scheme and trust deed bind insurer upon fund receipt and performance; subsequent master policy's conflicting terms void for lacking good faith disclosure, severed by blue pencil rule.
Insurer liable for compensation and 12% interest to contractor's employee listed in policy schedule despite general exclusion clause not disclosed therein; principal employer liable under contracting....
1) Fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties kno....
Insured is not entitled to compensation when on facts it is proved that he was intoxicated and that his death was due to intoxication.
Point of Law : There is no good ground to interfere in the orders impugned.
An insurance policy lapses if the premium is not paid within the grace period; revivals after the insured's death are impermissible under contract terms.
The duty of the proposer to disclose all material facts in the proposal form and the materiality of the non-disclosed information for the assessment of risk in insurance contracts.
Exclusion clauses in insurance contracts are binding unless proven unconscionable or contrary to public policy, reaffirming the validity of such clauses in commercial contracts.
Suppression of material facts by an insured can render an insurance claim voidable, impacting the insurer's liability.
A lapsed insurance policy cannot be revived post-death, and the Insurance Ombudsman lacks authority to bypass contract terms based on equity.
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
