Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Pnb Metlife Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vinita Devi on 24 September, 2018

Lic vs Kanaran on 13 May, 2026

I (2020) CPJ 4 (NC) 4- Neelam Chopra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ors.- IV (2018) CPJ 321 (NC) 5- PNB Metlife Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vinita Devi- I (2019) CPJ 441 (NC) 09- izLrqr'kqnk uthjksa dk llEeku v/;;u fd;k x;k] mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh xbZ ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA 10- vihykFkhZx.k@foi{kh la[;k 1 ,oa 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh ;g cgl gS fd bl ekeys esa ikWfylh 4]00]000@&:Ik;s dh tkjh dh xbZ Fkh] ysf du Dyse 4]40]000@&:i;s dk fo}ku ftyk miHkksDrk vk;ksx us xyr :Ik ls fnyk;s gSaA mudh ;g Hkh cgl gS fd izR;FkhZ la[;k 1@ifjoknh us rEckdw [kkus ds rF; dks vius izLrko esa fNik;k gS] tcfd lHkh esfMdy nLrkost bl ekeys esa izR;FkhZ la[;k 1@ifjoknh us izLrqr fd;s gSa vkSj blls ;g lkfcr gks tkrk gS fd mls ikWfylh izkjaHk gksus ds le; ls gh dSalj gks x;k Fkk vkSj og ikWfylh izkjaHk gksus ds igys ls gh rEckdw dk lsou dj jgk FkkA 11- izR;FkhZ la[;k 1@ifjoknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh ;g cgl dh xbZ gS fd bl ekeys esa iwoZ ds bykt ds dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSa vkSj izR;FkhZ la[;k 1@ifjoknh us izLrko&i= esa lgh tkudkfj;ka nh Fkh vkSj izLrko djrs le; mls dksbZ chekjh ugha Fkh] ,slk fpfdRldh; nLrkostksa ls Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gS fd loZizFke fpfdRld dks fn[kkus ds ,d lky igys rd og fcYdqy Bhd FkkA mudh ;g Hkh cgl gS fd chek daiuh ;g rF; lkfcr ugha dj ikbZ gS fd chek ikWfylh dh dkSu&lh 'krZ dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS] vr% vihy [kkfjt djus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA 7 jkT; miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx] lfdZV csp a vtesj vihy la[;k %& 130@2024 Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ,oa vU;
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Sarita Rajput vs Lic on 8 November, 2019

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the Forum has erroneously dismissed the complaint on the basis of the certificates issued by Dr. M. P. Gupta, which are not supported by the medical papers. The certificates are also not supported with the affidavit of the concerned doctor. Therefore, the impugned order which has been passed, merely relying on the certificates with no evidence including affidavit of the doctor, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.  He further argued that no cogent evidence was produced by the opposite parties/respondents in order to prove that the deceased-insured had concealed any facts about his illness while filling up of the proposal form. Learned counsel relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in P. Vankat Naidu Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. 2011 (3) CPC 350 and the judgments passed by the National Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Badri Nageswaramma (Deceased) & Others 2005 (1) CPC 501, Rasheeda Khatoon Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India 2009 (3) CPC 269, National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sardar Kulbir Singh 2010 (3) CPC 488 and in PNB Metlife   -3- Insurance Company Ltd Vs Vinita Devi I (2019) CPJ 441 (NC) in order to substantiate his submissions.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Care Health Insurance Ltd. vs Baljeet Singh on 30 April, 2024

11. In above said judgment, this Commission has held that the coronary artery disease, sepsis, UTI can also arise to non- diabetic patient. In the present case, there is no affidavit on record of treating doctor to prove the nexus of above said ailment to diabetes. The Hon'ble National Commission in case PNB Metlife Insurance Company (Supra) had held that "burden to prove that the life assured was suffering from any pre-existing disease lies with the Insurance Company". In the present case, the Appellant has failed to produce on record any medical history of said ailments suffered by the life assured at the time of taking the policy before the District Commission as well as before this Commission. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the matter and the order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on the record.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pnb Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Manjit Kaur on 20 May, 2024

12. As far as concealment of any disease or material information, no evidence has been produced by the Appellant/OP alongwith the concerned Doctor's affidavit to prove that before purchase of the policy, the DLA had been taking the treatment of any ailment/problem from any Hospital or Doctor and the DLA had the knowledge that he was suffering from the heart disease. However, in absence of any such evidence, the claim was wrongly repudiated by the Insurance Company. The District Commission had considered this aspect and had also given a categoric finding that the claim was wrongly repudiated. The Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as "PNB Metlife Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vinita Devi"
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hdfc Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs Vivek & Anr on 17 March, 2026

19. The Investigator has stated that the LA had suffered heart attack in the year 2002. On perusal of the medical record annexed by the OP, it is revealed that it was related from year 2007 till 30.10.2009 but thereafter for approximately 7 years i.e. upto 2016 no medical treatment record of the LA was available. In the absence of any medical record after 2009, it cannot be said that during that period, the LA had taken the treatment of heart problem. If the OP has levelled some allegations that at the time of taking the policy, the LA was suffering from heart problem and had taken the treatment of the same, then the onus was upon the OP to prove such fact with medical record relating to the said period and not on the basis of record relating to very old period of more than 7 years. It was held by the Superior Courts in number of judgments that onus was upon the party, who had levelled the allegations. Hon'ble National Commission in "PNB Metlife Insurance Company Ltd. V. Vinita Devi", 2019 (1) CPJ First Appeal No. 84 of 2024 10 441, had held that 'burden to prove that the life assured was suffering from any pre-existing disease lies with the Insurance Company'. As the OP in the present case had levelled allegations upon the LA regarding concealment of the material fact at the time of taking the policy, it was the duty of it to prove such facts with medical record relating to the same period.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1