Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVM J. RAJENDRA, J
Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shalini Devendra Shasrakar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural posture: initiation of appeal, delay condonation, and references to the proceedings and governance. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 9) |
| 2. investigation into pre-existing conditions and repudiation; reliance on medical records; suppression of material facts. (Para 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 3. final orders and dismissal/revival of appeal; court’s ultimate conclusion. (Para 5 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. parties' contentions and arguments presented to support respective positions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. burden of proof in non-disclosure lies on insurer; contra proferentem when ambiguity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER
1. This Appeal is filed by the OP under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”), against the Order dated 18.08.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Nagpur (“State Commission”) in CC No. 55 of 2013, wherein the State Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent.
2. As per the Registry report, there is 64 days delay in filing this Appeal and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the de
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
