Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 452 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Smt.Asha Goel & Anr on 13 December, 2000

Nand Construction Company vs Regional Manager (The), Oriental ... on 8 December, 2005

18. Having carefully gone through the aforesaid pronouncements of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court no doubt whatsoever remains in our mind that there is no absolute bar to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in contractual matters but such power is circumscribed as enumerated in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. v. Asha Goel and Anr. (supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - S K Keshote - Full Document

Mrs. Tanuja Gupta vs Future Generali India Life & Ins. Co. ... on 5 January, 2026

18. Additionally, we are in agreement with the findings of the District Commission that the contract of insurance is governed by the principle of uberrima fides i.e., utmost good faith. The District Commission has rightly relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Goel (2001) 2 SCC 160, P.C. Chacko vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India (2008) 1 SCC 321 and Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs. New India Assurance Company DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 18 FA/73/2021 D.O.D: 05.01.2026 MRS. TANUJA GUPTA VS. FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE & INSURANCE CO. LTD.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajit Ghosh vs The New India Assurance Company Limited ... on 9 February, 2012

The Single Bench decision of this Court dated April 22, 2010 in the WP No.13359(W) of 2008 (Monoranjan Mukherjee v. The New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors.) was given without considering the above-noted decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corpn. of India & Ors. v. Asha Goel & Anr.,(2001) 2 SCC 160. In any case, by the decision NIACL was not directed to accept any claim.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - J K Biswas - Full Document

190Th Report On Revision Of Insurance Act

5.1.6 The courts in India (and the consumer fora) have been consistent in requiring the insurer to prove the existence of all the three conditions in the second part of s.45 where the insurer seeks to repudiate a life insurance policy after the expiry of two years of its coming into effect. [See Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Kusuma T. Rai (1991) 70 Comp Cas 86 (Kar); Shanta Trivedi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India AIR 1988 Del 39 and Senior Divisional Manager, LIC v. Smt. J. Vinaya (2003) 1 CPJ 50 (NC)] In this context, the following observations of the Supreme Court in the recent decision of 2001 in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Goel (supra) are relevant (para 16, p.170 SCC):
Law Commission Report Cites 223 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr.Shanthi Rengarajan vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 9 March, 2018

D.5. As held in LIC of India (supra) the clause in an insurance policy has to stand the test of `reasonableness'. It is a means of social security. The principles laid down above in respect of life insurance equally apply with greater vigor to health insurance. Thus, the fact that a particular consumer's genetic heritage could lead to higher risk ought not to be used against the said person for exclusion of the person from availing medical insurance. What makes it worse is the fact that insurance companies, like in the present case, have not asked for higher premium based on a genetic disposition but have completely refused to honour a claim based on a broad understanding (or misunderstanding) of the term 'genetic disorders'.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next