Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
Jagjit Singh vs M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Ltd. & ... on 15 February, 2017 cites

New India Assurance Company Limited vs Trilochan Jane on 9 December, 2009

10.    The State Commission have relied upon condition no. (i), contained in the insurance policy, which says that notice of the incident, should be given in writing immediately upon the occurrence of any such incident.  It is true that the matter has been considered by this Commission and a view was taken in cases like the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane (supra), Shiv Priya vs. Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) that the delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company amounted to a violation of the policy terms and conditions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 274 - Full Document

Kulwant Singh vs The Managing Director, United India ... on 15 September, 2014

6.      The learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company stated, however, that the petitioner had first approached the insured Ombudsman and he never stated in his petition that the terms and conditions of the policy had not been given to him.  He took up the plea only at the time of arguments.  The learned counsel further stated that there is no evidence/record to say that intimation was given to the Insurance Company on phone.  Moreover, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, such intimation had to be given in writing.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to the orders passed by this Commission in Kulwant Singh vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in IV (2014) CPJ 350 (NC) and order dated 04.12.2015 in Shiv Priya vs. Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Revision Petition No. 3800/2013 and Sohan Lal Arora vs. Branch Manager, Cholamandalam in Revision Petition No. 523/2013, decided on 12.08.2013, saying that the delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company was fatal.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 3 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

General Assurance Society Ltd vs Chandumull Jain And Anr on 7 February, 1966

The learned counsel has also drawn attention to an order passed by General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandmull Jain & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1644, saying that in a contract of Insurance, the duty of the Court was to interpret the words, in which the contract was expressed by the parties.  Referring to the circular, issued by the IRDA, the learned counsel stated that the said circular was not applicable to the cases of theft of vehicle rather, it related to the health issues only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 345 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Dr.Kulwant Singh on 20 January, 2011

In the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kulwant Singh in Revision Petition No. 2719/2014, decided on 18.07.2014, reliance was placed on the circular of IRDA dated 20.09.2011 as referred to above.  It was held that the said circular referred not only to life insurance contracts, but also to all non-life insurance and group insurance contracts.  It was also stated that non-life insurance includes not only health insurance, but also the general insurance such as insurance of motor vehicles.  It was held in this case that the explanation given by the complainant for the delay in reporting the matter to the Insurance Company was in order and no prejudice had been caused to the Insurance Company on account of delay in bringing the theft to their knowledge.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Surender Kumar Sehgal & Ors. on 12 February, 2014

5.      It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the order passed by the insurance Ombudsman, the OP had failed to pay the claim for the theft of the vehicle.  The order passed by the District Forum was also in their favour.  The learned counsel stated that the terms and conditions governing the insurance policy were never supplied to them.  Further, the Insurance Company had been intimated in time on phone about the alleged incident.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 3357/2007, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mukesh Sehgal, decided on 11.12.2008, in which it was stated that once theft was established, the delay in lodging the complaint of two days was not of much consequence.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - S K Kait - Full Document

Sulochana Devi vs Lic Of India on 15 December, 2011

The learned counsel has also drawn attention to an order of this Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Shilpa Cloth House in Revision Petition No. 3675/2011, decided on 02.07.2015 and another order of this Commission dated 22.05.2015, in Sulochana Devi vs. LIC of India & Ors., stating that the delay in giving information was not of much consequence.  The learned counsel has also referred to a circular dated 20.09.2011, issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) vide reference no. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 in which it was stated that the condition of giving intimation to the insurer within a specified number of days should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, if there was delay in intimation due to unavoidable circumstances.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

United India Insurance vs Parul Bala on 3 March, 2009

However, the District Forum has relied upon another order of the National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parul Bala, 2009 CTJ 514 (CP) (NCDRC), in which the intimation was reported to the Insurance Company after 26 days of the incident and it was held that the claim could not be withheld, merely because the complainant informed the Insurance Company about the incident after 26 days.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Jagjit Singh on 10 September, 2015

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER           This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 346/2009, M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Jagjit Singh, vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh on 04.05.2009 in Consumer Complaint No. 1381/2008, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1