Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.53 seconds)

Mukul Aggarwal vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd on 22 December, 2014

22)               In Deccan Enterprises case reference was made to the decision of the SC in Synco Enterprises Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Ors. in which the Apex Court observed: where complicated question of law and facts are involved, Forum under Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. Civil Court was the proper Forum.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Surinder Pal Singh on 8 November, 2023

That the State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the said Policy itself contained a categorical declaration by the Respondent that he was aware that the said Policy did not cover any pre-existing illnesses or conditions arising there from ;              b.   That the State Commission erred in doubting the veracity of the Proposal Form filed by the Appellant merely on the basis of some preconceived bias against the Appellant without getting into the question whether the document was actually signed by the Respondent. A perusal form of the Proposal Form which was placed on record of the State Commission shows that the same was duly signed by the Respondent;     c.   That the State Commission erred in not appreciating the settled proposition of Law that where, for proper adjudication of the dispute, extensive evidence was required to be recorded and dealt with, and the same could not have been done in summary proceedings, the State Commission should have directed the parties to carry out detailed evidence including cross examination of witnesses in order to ascertain the correct facts;    d.  That the State Commission erred in disregarding the findings of this Hon'ble Commission in the cases of "SMT. B. Jayamma v. Sr. Branch Manager, LIC, RP No. 201/2000"; "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satya Pal Tuli, 2003 (3) CPR 33"; "Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mansa Devi, 2003 (II) CPJ 135 (NC"); "Deccan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2002) 3 CPJ 68"; "Ferry Gold (India) Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2002 (1) CPR 82 (NC)"; "New India Assurance v. John Jernandes, (1996) 2 CPJ 85."                                                                                                                                  5. Ld. Counsel for Appellant argued that the Policy schedule clearly states that the policy coverage is as per Policy terms and conditions. It is clear that the Respondent had met the Agent of the Appellant before or at the time of making payment and was informed of the terms and conditions of the said Policy. It was also the duty of the Respondent to inquire about the conditions of the Insurance Policy. The Appellant is protected under the legal maxim "caveat emptor" against the ignorant contention of the Respondent that he was unaware of the terms and conditions of the Policy; That State Commission grossly erred by stating that no evidence had been collected by the Appellant in India with respect to whether the Respondent suffered from pre-existing illnesses and had been admitted as an indoor patient or an OPD patient prior to his having obtained the Policy. The Hospital records categorically state that the Respondent had pre-existing medical conditions and had suffered similar chest pain a year ago. The discharge summary also mentioned that the Respondent had a past medical history of Hypertension and Dyslipidaemia; That the State Commission ought to have referred the dispute to a Civil Court for proper appreciation of the evidence in view of the complex questions of fact the present case has posed. A perusal of the impugned Order would show that in the view of the State Commission itself, the instant dispute required extensive recording of evidence.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1