Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Manish Gupta on 11 October, 2012

Sri Milind Kunale vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 25 April, 2024

20. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Manish Gupta as stated supra, has dealt with the similar situation at para- 22 of its judgment, which is extracted hereinabove. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the reimbursement received by the claimant to an extent of Rs.3,60,000/- expended towards medical treatment under the Mediclaim Health Insurance Policy Scheme by the Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Limited cannot be ordered to be once again paid by the respondent- Insurance Company, as the same would amount to double benefit. This would be the appropriate method to be
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P S Yerur - Full Document

The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Akber Badsha on 27 March, 2013

It was accordingly held by the Bench in the New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Manish Gupta and others M.A.C.A.No.1623 OF 2013 12 [2013 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 624] explaining the significant difference in between and observing that the very concept of insurance is not to extend any unlawful enrichment to anybody in respect of the very same cause of action. The purpose of insurance is only to place the party to the same level from where he suffered the downfall because of the contingency occurred. The observations made by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in paragraphs 18, 19,20 and 22 are in the following terms:
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - K Harilal - Full Document

Ramesh.C vs Kavitha.R on 1 December, 2025

20. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Manish Gupta as stated supra, has dealt with the similar situation at para- 22 of its judgment, which is extracted hereinabove. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the reimbursement received by the claimant to an extent of Rs.3,60,000/- expended towards medical treatment under the Mediclaim Health Insurance Policy Scheme by the Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Limited cannot be ordered to be once again paid by the respondent- Insurance Company, as the same would amount to double benefit. This would be the appropriate method to be followed for the reason that the Motor Vehicles Act has come into force as a Welfare Legislation to see that just and reasonable compensation is paid. The just and reasonable compensation cannot be double benefit for one and deprivation to the other and so also, it cannot be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. If the claimant had not received the benefit from the Mediclaim Health Insurance Policy Scheme, then he would have been certainly entitled to the said amount. However, nothing is forthcoming in the judgment of the tribunal or any evidence as to what is the premium paid by the claimant. Hence, this Court cannot award any such premium as well".
Bangalore District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Sevagi vs State Express Transport Corporation ... on 10 December, 2015

(5) Lastly, if there is any doubt as to whether the balancing principle extends to any class of benefit not covered by any binding authority, the doubt has to be resolved in favour of the claimants inasmuch as in such a case the defendant must be held to have failed to discharge the burden placed on him to justify such deduction. At Paragraph 20, the Karnataka High Court further held that indeed, an injured person cannot claim benefit out of his own misfortune and therefore, he cannot claim medical expenses under the Mediclaim policy and also claim damages in the nature of amount expended for medical treatment under the claim petition, which is filed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Sri Pritam B. Mittadar vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance on 6 January, 2015

he is entitled to differential amount as compensation. On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the said decision the insurance company has challenged the award passed by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal awarded the compensation under the head of medical expenses incurred by the claimant, though the medical treatment of the claimant has been reimbursed under the Mediclaim policy, thereby their lordship held that claim for compenstion where the claimant held medical insurance policy and had got medical expenses incurred by him, reimbursed under the said policy his claim for reimbursement of same expenses once
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Praveen Kumar H vs Sri. Chandrashekara Reddy P.V on 5 February, 2015

18 S.C.C.H:8 MVC.No.1541/2014 Now the question arises, whether the petitioner is entitled for the entire amount which was spent for his treatment as shown in the medical bills and whether the amount which was already received under the mediclaim policy is deductable out of the medical bill amount. So this court drawn its attention on the decision reported in 2013(1) Kar. L.J. 624 (DB) in between New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Manish Gupta and another reads like thus;
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next