Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.93 seconds)
Documents citing Life Insurance Corportaion Of India & ... vs Nita Bhardawaj on 21 January, 2014

Branch Manager, State Bank Of India vs Smt. Nisha Chaudhary on 4 October, 2017

10. On the question of nexus, learned counsel for the insurance company cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Nita Bhardwaj; I (2014) CPJ 409 (NC), wherein it was held that it is 8 immaterial whether cause of death had any nexus or not with the disease suffered and suppressed by the insured.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

L I C Of India vs Rajesh G Panwala on 24 August, 2021

28. Ld. Advocate Mr. Shelat has cited I (2014)CPJ Page no.409 (NC) Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Nita Bhardwaj where in it is held that the suppression of previous disease and treatment violation of condition of the policy claim repudiated and it is immaterial whether a cause of death have any nexus or not which disease suffering and suppression by insured under such circumstances repudiation of the claim is justified.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kamikkar Singh on 26 February, 2016

The National Commission has held in "Life Insurance Corporation of India & others Vs. Nita Bhardwaj" 2014(1)CPJ- 409 that it is immaterial whether cause of death had any nexus or not with disease suffered and suppressed by insured. it is not essential that there should be any direct nexus of the disease suppressed and the cause of death of life assured. Any mis- statement or wrong answer given in the proposal form by the life First Appeal No.977 of 2012 7 assured renders the Contract of Insurance voidable, which is based on the principle of utmost good faith. We find that the insurance policy issued to life assured was with commencement of risk dated 21.10.2008 and she died on 09.11.2008 at her Village Mehal Kalan just thereafter. She was admitted in DMC Ludhiana, vide record of DMC Ex.R-7. She was remained admitted from 22.06.2008 to 03.07.2008 before taking the policy at DMC Hospital Ludhiana. She had not disclosed about her previous ailment when she took the insurance policy and gave wrong declaration by suppressing this material information. She was required to disclose the fact of her previous ailment, which was in her knowledge, as she remained admitted in the above Hospital prior to taking the policy. The report of investigating agency is Ex.R-6 to the effect that it collected the evidence from DMC Hospital Ludhiana and rightly found that she was earlier suffering from Pancytopenia with Aplastic Anaemia, but she intentionally suppressed this fact while filling up the proposal form. The Contract of Insurance is based on good faith, whosoever makes a mis-statement renders the Contract of Insurance voidable at the option of the other. As held by the National Commission in the above referred authority. It is not essential that there should be any direct nexus between the cause of death and fact suppressed regarding previous ailment; because it is the suppression of material information, which renders the Contract of Insurance voidable. It was for Insurance Company to make up its mind whether to accept the Contract of Insurance or not. If life assured had truly disclosed about First Appeal No.977 of 2012 8 her fact about this pre-existing ailment in the proposal form. Resultantly, the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case is not sustainable in the eye of law.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunita Devi vs L I C on 6 December, 2024

6.    बीमा निगम की ओर से नजीर, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors vs. Nita Bhardwaj I (2014) CPJ 409 (NC) तथा नजीर, Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Kanchan Devi and ors IV (2013) CPJ 197 (NC) प्रस्‍तुत की गई है, परन्‍तु चूंकि प्रस्‍तुत केस में बीमाधारक की मृत्‍यु बीमा पालिसी लेने के दो वर्ष पश्‍चात हुई है, इसलिए बीमा निगम को जांच करने का कोई अधिकार प्राप्‍त नहीं था, बल्कि क्‍लेम अदा किया जाना चाहिए था, इसलिए इन नजीरों का कोई प्रभाव अपीलार्थी के विरूद्ध नहीं है। तदनुसार प्रस्‍तुत अपील स्‍वीकार होने योग्‍य है।
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1