Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.47 seconds)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs R.Ramesh on 1 February, 2021 cites

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Manish Gupta on 11 October, 2012

It was accordingly held by the Bench in the New India Assurance Company Limited v. Manish Gupta [2013 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 624] explaining the significant difference in between and observing that the very concept of insurance is not to extend any unlawful enrichment to anybody in respect of the very same cause of action. The purpose of insurance is only to place the party to the same level from where he suffered the downfall because of the contingency occurred. The observations made by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 22 are in the following terms:
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. ... vs Priyank on 13 January, 1999

19. With reference to the deductions under the Mediclaim, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Priyank reported in 2000 ACJ 701, placing reliance on the full Bench decision has observed that the amount received by the insured under the Mediclaim Policy is not deductible inasmuch as the claimant has received these amount under the contract of insurance, for which had paid premium. We are unable to persuade ourselves agree to the opinion rendered by the 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.1767 of 2020 & 35 of 2021 Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, moreso having regard to the fact that the Full Bench had ruled and classified as to what are the amounts, which are deductible and the amounts which are not deductible.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 29 - S Singh - Full Document

The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Akber Badsha on 27 March, 2013

15.It is the case of the respondents 3 and 4 in the appeal that the claimant got reimbursement of Rs.1,90,370/- under the Mediclaim policy and the Tribunal failed to deduct the same from the compensation awarded towards medical expenses. From the award of the Tribunal it is seen that the claimant has admitted that he availed reimbursement of Rs.1,90,370/- from the Star Health Insurance. As per the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in 2016 ACJ 807 [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Akber Badsha and others], the claimant is not entitled to the said sum of Rs.1,90,370/-, under the head, medical expenses, which has been reimbursed by the Star Health Insurance. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, after considering the judgments on this issue in paragraph nos.12, 15 and 17, held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - K Harilal - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Patrica Jean Mahajan And Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 July, 2002

h) 2002 ACJ 1441 [United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan] After considering the above judgments, the Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment dated 06.10.2015, in C.M.A.No.2232 of 2015, held that if 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.1767 of 2020 & 35 of 2021 claimants have received reimbursement under the Mediclaim Policy, the same has to be deducted from the medical expenses claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act. In paragraph Nos.16, 18 and 19, it has held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 446 - B Kumar - Full Document

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Anantharam Singh on 27 September, 1995

In similar, if not identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporations v. Anantharam Singh reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1088 has observed that once a claim is satisfied with respect to the damages caused to the car by the insurer, the question of the owner of the car claiming damages as against the tort - feasor before the Claims Tribunal does not arise inasmuch as the cost of repair having been already recovered through the insurer, the claimant or the owner of the case cannot claim compensation under the claim petition filed under the Act. It is useful to extract the observations made by the Division Bench, which would read as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - B Padmaraj - Full Document
1