Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Twenty First Century Media Private ... vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Nia) on 25 January, 2019

Golden Trust Financial Services & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2019

M/s. Twenty First Century Media Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has considered a case where, although, the insured was protected against floods and rains by virtue of a contract for insurance, when such an incident happened, the insurance company unilaterally made an endorsement dated October 18, 2010 deleting the expressions 'floods, rains etc.' from the policy. This has been found to be arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right of the insured under Article 14 of the Constitution. There only one contract of insurance was involved were a coverage of floods, rains, etc. were sought to be excluded. The policy would otherwise continue. Certain coverage under the policy where sought to be excluded without the policy itself being terminated. In this case, the entire policy is terminated on the ground of change of policy. This difference to my understanding is substantial.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roshanlal Sharma vs Lic on 29 October, 2019

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant vehemently argued that when it is clearly mentioned by the respondent in the policy document that Rs.2,629/- is the amount of monthly annuity, it is highly unfair on part of the insurance company to have given Rs.1,579/- as monthly annuity to the complainant.  He argued that even if it is printing mistake, it is on part of the employees of the insurance company, regarding which the complainant was informed after a period of 11 years, at the time of payment of monthly pension. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and respondent be directed to give monthly annuity amount of Rs.2,629/- to the complainant/appellant along with compensation and cost. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in Life Insurance Corporation and Anr Vs Sunil Kumar Paliwal III (2012) CPJ 250 (NC) and the decisions of the Supreme Court in His Holiness Digya Darshan Rajendra Ram Doss Vs Devendra Doss (1973) 1 SCC 14 & in Civil Appeal No.1128 OF 2019 M/S Twenty First Century Media Private Limited Vs New India Assurance Company Limited decided on 25 January, 2019.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Neelakandan @ Neelakantan vs Proprietor on 6 April, 2023

4. Learned counsel for the employer Sri. Somashekar contends that this argument cannot be sustained in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme -4- MFA No. 7884 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 8647 of 2019 Court in Civil Appeal No.1128/2019 - M/s. Twenty First Century Media Private Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Limited. He highlights the fact that it was not in dispute that the insurer had been issued with policies to cover the risk of the employees and in the previous policy there was no such exclusionary clause indicated, but this clause was inserted without the knowledge of the employer and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Twenty First Century Media Private Limited has in identical cases held that the insurer would be liable simply because the earlier policy did not contain an exclusionary clause and once the policy was new, an additional clause cannot be inserted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

The Manager vs Sri Neelakandan @ Neelakantan on 6 April, 2023

4. Learned counsel for the employer Sri. Somashekar contends that this argument cannot be sustained in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme -4- MFA No. 7884 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 8647 of 2019 Court in Civil Appeal No.1128/2019 - M/s. Twenty First Century Media Private Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Limited. He highlights the fact that it was not in dispute that the insurer had been issued with policies to cover the risk of the employees and in the previous policy there was no such exclusionary clause indicated, but this clause was inserted without the knowledge of the employer and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Twenty First Century Media Private Limited has in identical cases held that the insurer would be liable simply because the earlier policy did not contain an exclusionary clause and once the policy was new, an additional clause cannot be inserted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document
1