Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT, DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY, MEMBER
HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SMT. RATNA MISHRA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to appeal and initial facts regarding insurance claim. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observations on evidence and findings during appeal. (Para 4 , 11 , 17) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties regarding claim repudiation. (Para 5 , 6 , 16) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties regarding the validity of the claim. (Para 7) |
| 5. discussion on prior medical conditions and contract obligations. (Para 12) |
| 6. discussion on legal obligations under insurance contract and non-disclosure. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
Per Say Justice SunitaYadav:
This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants-insurance company is directed against the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khandwa (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 239/2014 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.
-2-
2. In short facts of the case are that the complainant's husband Late Ajay Mishra during his life time had obtained a life insurance policy under CRD scheme in October-2012 from the opposite parties/appellants-insurance company for a sum of Rs.4,40,655/-. Her husband (deceased-insured) died on 19.01.2013 due to heart attack a
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
