Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Surinder Kaur vs Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on 26 July, 2017 cites

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

18. Like the present case in Satwant Kaur Sandhu's case (supra) the insured was aware of the fact that he was suffering from chronic diabetes and renal failure. He did not disclose the said fact in the proposal form for the Policy. The expression 'material fact' was also interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held therein that in contract of insurance any fact which would influence the mind of a prudent insurer in deciding whether to accept or not to accept the risk is a 'material fact'. If the proposer has knowledge of such fact, he is obliged to disclose it particularly while answering question in the proposal form. Needless to emphasize that any inaccurate answer will entitle the insurer to repudiate its liability because there is clear presumption that any information sought for in the proposal form is material for the purpose of entering into a contract of insurance. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the insurer was fully justified in repudiating the insurance contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 608 - D K Jain - Full Document

L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Balbir Kaur on 5 December, 2008

20. Like the present case in 2011(2) CLT 281 (NC) (LIC of India v. Dalbir Kaur) before taking the insurance policy, the insured had undergone treatment as an inpatient in Sony Nursing Home from 8.5.1999 to 16.5.1999 and from 1.2.2002 to 28.2.2002. He was also an outpatient in the same Nursing Home till 22.4.2012 and it was also on the record that he had been sanctioned two months' earned leave from 11.4.2002. While filling up the proposal form, he had given answers in the negative to the above said questions. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the Insurance Company was entitled to repudiate the insurance claim as the declaration made by the insured was found to be false. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

P.C. Chacko And Another vs Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation ... on 20 November, 2007

In 2008(3) CPC 248 (SC) (P.C. Chacko and another v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others) the insured had undergone thyroid operation, which was not disclosed by him at the time of obtaining the policy and he died within six months after taking that policy. It was held therein that the deliberate wrong answer may lead to policy being vitiated in law. The contract of insurance was held to be null and void and the repudiation of the claim was upheld. It was held therein that it is a well settled law in the field of insurance that contracts of insurance including the contracts of life assurance are contacts uberrima fides and every fact Consumer Complaint No.2 of 2016 20 of materiality must be disclosed otherwise there is good ground for rescission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 351 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sangeeta Kaushik Alias Satya Bhama vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 17 November, 2009

In 2010(1)CLT 481 (Sangeeta Kaushik and others v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others) the life assured concealed the material fact of the disease of Dibetes Mellitus Type II from which he was suffering while filling the proposal form. It was held by this Commission that it was a serious disease and the concealment amounted to suppression of material fact.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1