Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.34 seconds)Section 17 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs The Chief Electoral Officer on 8 February, 2023
17. As far as the interpretation of an insurance policy is
concerned, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Chief Electoral Officer and others 1, this Court reiterated
9
that an insured cannot claim anything more than what is
covered by the insurance policy. The terms of the contract
have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of
the contract. Moreover, the clauses of an insurance policy
must be read as they are. The terms of the insurance policy,
which determine the liability of the insurance company, must
be read strictly. This Court also held that the rule of contra
proferentem is not applicable to a commercial contract like a
contract of insurance. The rule of contra proferentem
contemplates that if any clause in the contract is ambiguous,
it must be interpreted against the party that introduced it.
For the contract of insurance, the applicability of the said
concept is ruled out. The reason is that the insurance
contract is bilateral and mutually agreed upon, like any other
commercial contract.
Gurshinder Singh vs Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 24 January, 2020
The learned
counsel appearing for the insurer relied upon a decision of
1 2023 SCC Online SC 115
7
this Court in the case of Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram
General Insurance Co Ltd.2. The submission is that the
failure of the insured to inform the insurer about the accident
immediately after the accident can be a ground for
repudiating the claim under the policy.
1