Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
INDER JIT SINGH, Presiding Member, SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bhanu Mehta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and policy issuance facts (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's suppression of medical facts arguments (Para 3) |
| 3. hearing summary and substantial questions of law (Para 4) |
| 4. no evidence of pre-existing disease knowledge (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. repudiation inconsistent with fraud allegation (Para 12) |
| 6. interest from repudiation date upheld (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. appeals dismissed, orders upheld (Para 16 , 17) |
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1.ZYXWTVUhTeS RpQrPeOsNeMnLtK JSIHeGcFoEDnCdB AAppeals (SAs) have been filed by the Appellants against Respondent as detailed above, under section 51 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 12.11.2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 92 of 2025 and 99 of 2025 in which order dated 16.12.2024 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 394 of 2023 was SA/37&42/2026 Page 2 of25 ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA I challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2025.
Appellant f
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
