Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
1.The Lic Of India vs Mudu Devsingh on 13 July, 2022 cites

Bajaj Allianz Lic Ltd vs Dalbir Kaur on 11 January, 2019

15) Court reported in Civil company relies upon the decision of the Supreme AppealNo.3397/2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10652 of 2020) in the matter of Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., and others versus Dalbir Kaur, decided on 09.10.2020 which lays down the undisputed legal proposition insofar as the matters of the contract of insurance are concerned. In the said Judgment, the Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs-11 and 12 as follows:
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod on 24 April, 2019

"11. Recently, this Court in Reliance Life Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod (5 (2019) 6 SCC 175), has set aside the judgment of the NCDRC, whereby the NCDRC had held that the failure of the insured to disclose a previous insurance policy as required under the policy proposal form would not influence the decision of a prudent insurer to issue the policy in question and therefore the insurer was disentitled from repudiating its liability...
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 115 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 5 October, 2015

12. The decision of this Court in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar vs Life insurance Corporation of mdia, which has been relied upon by the NCDRC, is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the assured suffered a myocardial infarction and succumbed to it. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground tnat here was a suppression of a pre-existing humbar spondylitis. It was in this background that this Court held that the alleged concealment was of such a nature that would not disentitle the deceased from getting his life insured. In other words, the pre-existing ailment was clearly unrelated to the cause of death. This Court had also observed in its decision that the ailment concealed by the deceased was not life-threatening a disease. This decision must, therefore, be distinguished from thefactual position as it has emerged before this Court."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 50 - Full Document
1