Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)
Om Prakash Ahuja vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd on 4 July, 2023 cites

Satwant Kaur Sandhu vs New India Assurance Company Ltd on 10 July, 2009

Though that amount is not being disputed by the appellant, however, the claim made for the period during which the policy was renewed in terms of interim order passed by the National Commission will not be admissible to the appellant. He further submitted that reliance on the order passed by this Court in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar’s case (supra) is totally misplaced. In the aforesaid order, the earlier binding precedents of this Court in Satwant Kaur Page 8 of 17 Civil Appeal Nos. 2769-2770 of 2023 Sandhu v. New India Assurance Company Limited2, Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited and Another v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod3 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mahendra Construction4, were not considered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 608 - D K Jain - Full Document

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

Though that amount is not being disputed by the appellant, however, the claim made for the period during which the policy was renewed in terms of interim order passed by the National Commission will not be admissible to the appellant. He further submitted that reliance on the order passed by this Court in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar’s case (supra) is totally misplaced. In the aforesaid order, the earlier binding precedents of this Court in Satwant Kaur Page 8 of 17 Civil Appeal Nos. 2769-2770 of 2023 Sandhu v. New India Assurance Company Limited2, Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited and Another v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod3 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mahendra Construction4, were not considered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 115 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Mahendra Construction on 1 April, 2019

Though that amount is not being disputed by the appellant, however, the claim made for the period during which the policy was renewed in terms of interim order passed by the National Commission will not be admissible to the appellant. He further submitted that reliance on the order passed by this Court in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar’s case (supra) is totally misplaced. In the aforesaid order, the earlier binding precedents of this Court in Satwant Kaur Page 8 of 17 Civil Appeal Nos. 2769-2770 of 2023 Sandhu v. New India Assurance Company Limited2, Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited and Another v. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod3 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mahendra Construction4, were not considered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

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

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case in which the appellant had got the health insurance policy for the family. Once expenses had been incurred on the treatment of his wife, the same were required to be reimbursed by the insurance company. There is no dispute raised as expenses were actually incurred. The wife of the appellant unfortunately expired. Though the direction was issued by the District Forum, as upheld up to the National Commission, the expenses incurred during the period 7.7.2007 to 6.7.2009 were directed to be paid to the appellant considering the fact that the concealment of rheumatic heart disease had no relation with ovarian Page 5 of 17 Civil Appeal Nos. 2769-2770 of 2023 cancer. Reliance was placed on order passed by this Court in Sulbha Prakash Motegaonkar v. LIC1. However, for the period subsequent to 6.7.2009, the claim was not accepted by the insurance company. On a complaint filed by the appellant, a direction was issued by the District Forum to the insurance company to reimburse the expenses incurred on the treatment. The order was upheld by the State Commission. However, the National Commission has erroneously set aside that order holding that the renewal of policy was not proper. No doubt, the health insurance policy was renewed on a direction issued by the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission. However, non- renewal of a policy by the insurance company has certainly deprived the appellant from taking the policy from any other company. At this stage, it would be unreasonable to deprive the appellant of the fruits of the policy in the form of claim, despite the fact that more than the normal premium was charged by the insurance company at the time of renewal as extra risk was covered.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 50 - Full Document
1