Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.), MEMBER, HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shalini Devendra Shasrakar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction established under the consumer protection act. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts regarding the deceased's insurance claim and subsequent repudiation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. order of the state commission concerning the claim. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties regarding the claim. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's examination and assessment of the sufficiency of evidence. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. burden of proof principles and the contra proferentem rule. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. the court's conclusion on the merits of the case and the decision to uphold the state commission's order. (Para 16) |
| 8. final order dismissing the appeal. (Para 17) |
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
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
