Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Milind S.Sonawane, Presiding Member, Nagesh C.Kumbre, Member
Ajay Vijay Lade – Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of insurance policy and claim proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. insurer's fraud allegations against insured. (Para 4) |
| 3. district commission's suspicious facts analysis. (Para 5) |
| 4. appellant's and insurer's arguments on evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. rejection of insurer's investigation evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. insurer must prove fraudulent suppression pre-claim. (Para 13) |
| 7. death certificate prevails over conflicting records. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. irda kyc duties on insurers at policy inception. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 9. insurer's failure in verification constitutes deficiency. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 01.04.2026)
Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad (the ‘District Commission’ for short) in C.C.No.161/2013, whereby the District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant by majority (President and one Member). The another Member of the Coram namely Kiran R. Thole however, wrote the dissenting judgment allowing the complaint.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this 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
