Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 129 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Biman Krishna Bose vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr on 2 August, 2001

The Divisional Manager vs Mulji Virji Thakkar on 27 February, 2008

15. In the impugned order, the appellant alleged that the third respondent insured less aged group of his family members and staff with another insurer and prefers to insure aged respondents 1 and 2 with it, is certainly invalid reason besides contrary to basic principles of insurance laws. In this context, it is necessary to mention that even in an area of contractual relations, the State and its instrumentalities are enjoined with the obligation to act with fairness and while doing so can take into consideration only the relevant materials, not irrelevant and extraneous considerations while arriving at a decision. Arbitrariness should not appear in their action or decisions. Followed Biman Krishna Bose v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,(2001) 6 SCC 477.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jacob Punnen vs United India Insurance Co;Ltd on 9 December, 2021

6. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants Ms. Arundhati Katju that the State Forum and the NCDRC fell into error in holding that the appellants were aware and were deemed to have been aware of the terms of the policy. It was emphasized that the appellants had not applied and obtained a fresh policy but had rather renewed an existing policy – as they did earlier from time to time annually. Placing reliance on Biman Krishna Bose v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera3, it was argued that the renewal of an insurance policy would imply that the existing terms would bind the parties. As a consequence, the insurer being a party cannot impose unilateral changes, either at the point of time when the policy is renewed or during its currency.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 12 - S R Bhat - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mohanlal Aggarwal [Alongwith Letters ... on 5 December, 2003

3.2 The insurer contested the petition by filing affidavit-in-reply dated 25th December 2002 contending that the insured was not entitled to get the mediclaim insurance policy renewed without the exclusionary clause in view of the stipulation in clause No.5.9 of the policy, as per which, the policy may be renewed by mutual consent and the company may at any time cancel the same by sending the insured a thirty days' notice and refunding the prorata premium for the unexpired period. According to the insurer, the policy cannot be renewed without mutual consent and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked in getting it renewed. It was further contended that the mediclaim policy which was issued by the insurance company was "not statutorily required and, therefore, there is no legal right and obligation between the Company and the petitioner". It was also submitted that there was nothing arbitrary in refusing to renew the policy, and that the decision of the Apex Court in Biman Krishna Bose v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2001 (6) SCC 477, was not applicable to the case, because, the question that the policy could be renewed only by mutual consent did not arise in that case and that the monopoly as regards the general insurance business did not now remain with the companies. It was also contended that the condition of the insured was a chronic condition requiring dialysis at least four times in a month and the suggestion implied in his letter dated 2nd October 2002 that dialysis would continue till the end of October 2002 as opined by the doctor, amounted to making of a false statement for getting the policy renewed. It was submitted that the insured was financially very sound and had a roaring business and therefore, the statement that he was unable to make both ends meet was false. It was also pointed out that, in the past, the claims of the insured for Rs.80,000=00 for heart surgery in the year 1994, for Rs.60,000=00 for T.B. treatment in the year 2000 and for Rs.2,05,000=00 for kidney failure treatment in the year 2002, were paid by the insurer. It was further contended that now the diseases contracted by the insured were undisputedly known and in such circumstances, the element of "unforeseen event or occurrence" had ceased to exist and therefore, the insurance being essentially an agreement whereby the insurer agrees to indemnify the person insured against an unforeseen event, the insured was not entitled to get the insurance of such diseases which were by now known.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Purnima Prasad And Ors. vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ... on 23 May, 2006

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Biman Krishna Boss v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (supra), which was a comparable case and the insurance company had refused to renew the policy, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner had engaged himself in litigation against the company. The Supreme Court considered it to be an irrational and arbitrary ground. Renewal of an insurance policy means repetition of the original policy. If we take the view, the Supreme Court observed, that the mediclaim policy cannot be renewed with retrospective effect, it would give handle to the Insurance Company to refuse renewal of the policy on extraneous considerations thereby deprive the claim of the insured for treatment of diseases which have appeared during the relevant time and further deprive the insured for all time to come to cover those diseases under an insurance policy by virtue of the exclusion clause. This being the disastrous effect of wrongful refusal of renewal of the insurance policy, the mischief and harm done to the insured must be remedied. Once it is found that the act of an insurance company was arbitrary in refusing to renew the policy, the policy is required to be renewed with effect from the date when it fell due for its renewal. In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court directed the insurance company to accept the premium and renew the policy with effect from the renewed date with the same terms and conditions.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - S K Katriar - Full Document

United India Ins. Co. Ltd vs Nitin Choksi on 18 May, 2023

7 "The basic issue which has been canvassed on behalf of the appellant before this Court is that the conditions of exclusion under the policy document were not handed over to the appellant by the insurer and in the absence of the appellant being made aware of the terms of the exclusion, it is not open to the insurer to rely upon the exclusionary clauses. Hence, it was urged that the decision in Harchand Rai will have no application since there was no dispute in that case that the policy document was issued to the insured.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Iffco Tokio Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd. vs Paramount Health Services Ltd on 26 July, 2022

In another case, Biman Krishna Bose Vs. United India Insurance Co., 2001 (6) SCC 477, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made observations on important aspects of renewal of mediclaim policy. It was held that renewal of an insurance policy means repetition of the original policy. When renewed, the policy is extended and the renewed policy in the identical terms from a different date of its expiration comes into force. In common parlance, by renewal, the old policy is revived and it is a sort of substitution of obligations under the old policy unless such policy provides otherwise.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lic Of India & Ors. vs R. Venkatramaiah on 21 December, 2020

In the absence of any new medical condition which could have justified the Insurance Company's decision to reject the revival of the Policy and the medical condition of the Complainant being unchanged since he initially purchased the Policy, I find that the decision to reject the revival of Insurance Policy, was arbitrary, unjustifiable and in teeth of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Biman Kishore Bose Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. The State Commission has rightly held that "the Insurance Company having collected Rs. 10,96,854 towards premium cannot appropriate the amount, on specious reasons and laconic reading of condition 4", and therefore  had correctly awarded the same to the Complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shreenath Industries on 15 September, 2021

82 Secondly, it is also not in dispute that this renewal aspect was clearly mentioned with the expression "RP" in the cover note which was issued by the National Insurance on 1st May, 2003 when Shreenath availed the insurance policy in question by making payment of premium for the same at the rate prescribed by the National Insurance. In insurance contract, the concept of renewal is well known. It has specific connotation. It means repetition of original policy on the same terms [See Biman Krishna Bose v. United India Insurance (2001) 6 SCC 477 at Para 5].
Gujarat High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next