Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SUBHASH CHANDRA, MR
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
BEDAN BAI & 2 ORS. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurance claim barring due to delay requires justification. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellate court responsibilities regarding jurisdiction and reasonable outcomes. (Para 7 , 10 , 15) |
| 3. claims must adhere to fairness despite procedural delays. (Para 8) |
| 4. concurrent findings of facts should not be omitted without clear legal reasons. (Para 9 , 12 , 14) |
PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.12.2011 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 2726 of 2011.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner – insurance company herein was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) (in short, ‘the District Forum’). The insurance company issued a group personal accident insurance policy to the Employees of the Chhattisgarh Power Holding Company Ltd., - respondent no. 4, covering 17,601 employees vide offer/ proposal dated 11.09.2003 and thereafter received a premium of Rs.11,40,544/- from respondent no.4. A policy no.42/204/27 was operative and effective from 11.09
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
